Sponsor a Law Student Day (or Ted Brassfield Redux)

In a move that is sure to shock none but annoy many, a 3L at the University of Arizona's law school has launched a campaign seeking sponsors to help defray the high cost of tuition. Ruth, AKA, "Law Kid", offers the following incredible opportunity:

Sponsor A Law Kid gives anyone who wants to the opporutnity to sponsor my legal education for a day. It will run from January 1, 2011 until July 27, 2011 – the last day of the Arizona Bar Exam. Each day can have one sponsor. I will also be tweeting every day about the life of a law student, so anyone who follows me can vicariously go to law school for a semester.

But it gets even better:

I can’t promise you that I’ll keep you out of jail once I’m a lawyer to give free legal advice – that would violate the code of ethics. However, when I make it on the legal lecture circuit, and I have to decide where I’m speaking next, it will be hard for me to decline an invitation from one of my law school sponsors.

And there you have it. Cutesy, annoying, self-important, mildly delusional trash from a third year law student. A new and refreshing spin on the deadly serious, annoying, self-important, feverishly delusional, "Dammit Obama give me a job because the American dream is dead and I'm still having problems with the bar exam" Ted Brassfield. Variations on a theme. But let's be clear: Ruth's shtick is far more palatable than Brassfield's. She's asking for help, not indignantly demanding the President answer for her educational decisions and employment prospects.

I have no problem with law students taking an entrepreneurial approach to paying the bills. When I was in law school, I was a writer for a couple different legal publications, tutored for the SAT, worked as a personal trainer, and offered "law school admissions consulting" services to rich kids for a hefty fee. But there is a difference between entrepreneurial effort and entrepreneurial begging. The former is to be commended. The later, well, not so much.

Ruth claims to be very interested in internet law and intellectual property. If so, she could have dedicated some of her time to researching and blogging on that topic. She might have been able to do some part time, contract work in that realm. That would have been entrepreneurial effort.

And although it is not my intention to pick on Ruth, who seems harmless enough, I can't help but note how she reminds me of those little kids who say things like, "I want to do something with animals, like maybe a veterinarian." Or like those aspiring law students who say, "I'm really interested in international law." See:

I also hope I can do something to prevent cyberharassment through public speaking.

A recurring theme, indeed a trope, in the narrative of the modern legal world is disillusionment. It seems that everyone is disillusioned. It seems that everyone is shocked and angry and complaining that they've gotten a bum deal. All sorts of people - from the innocuous Ruth to the ridiculous Ted Brassfield - are complaining that, by gosh, it just ain't right. And there's some truth in that.

• Yes, legal education is (in many instances) a huge racket and a cash cow for universities.

• Yes, some law schools either inflate their employment statistics or report statistics that are intentionally misleading.
  

• Yes, there is an entire industry built up around selling wide-eyed 22 year-olds the dream of practicing law even though that dream has been badly oversold.
  

• Yes, the movies and tv shows make law look so much more glamorous than it really is.

But remember: caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware. There is no shortage of information floating around on the interwebs about the cost of law school or the brutal job market. And it is axiomatic that in a recession, when tax revenues are down, public colleges and universities will implement significant tuition increases. And as far as Ted Brassfield goes, well, its commonsense that not everyone will get their dream job with the DOJ (especially if they're still waiting for bar exam results, 3 bar exam sittings after graduation).

People need to face the facts. Either you take scholarship money at whatever school offers it to you or you take on some serious debt to finance your law school education. That, or you have rich parents. If none of those are viable options, then you just don't go to law school.

You go to law school confident in your ability to land the job you want (likely because you're headed to a good school) or you are intent on taking a less-than-ideal job then working your way up. Either that, or you just don't go to law school.

I want to be a lawyer who is also a lecturer, writer, and podcaster.

If Ruth sounded like someone serious about achieving these things.... If she seemed dedicated, disciplined, and willing to put in the necessary work.... I would be the first to cheer her on. But Ruth doesn't sound the least bit serious. She sounds... like that 5th grader who "wants to do something with animals".... She sounds, well, like a law kid, not an adult.

And yet once again, Watership Down has the answer for everything:

'El-ahrairah,' said the Black Rabbit at last, 'this is a cold warren: a bad place for the living and no place at all for warm hearts and brave spirits.'

This is law. Its no place for law kids.

"Jobless Pace Law Grads Live at Home, Go Back to School, Hang Own Shingle"

On Saturday night, I was sitting in a cigar bar on Las Olas Boulevard in Fort Lauderdale. It was none other than Macabi's, owned that well-known local character - and great friend of mine - "Pat" Patel. I was smoking a cigar and drinking whiskey and Pat was we were talking mostly about whether or not peace in Afghanistant was possible.

Through the door walked two law students from a local law school. Only in their first year - first semester, in fact - they were already talking about possible exit options. Had they made the wrong choice? Should they drop out now? For both of them, the answer was most certainly yes, drop out now, or at the very least, transfer to a much cheaper school.

Every culture has its own tropes. In America, we no that certain things will never change. Preachers will get caught in sex scandals. Democrats will manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Celtics will always battle the Lakers. And inevitably, young people will attend law school without any good reason for doing so.

(1) "I didn't know what else to do." Trite but true: If you are a college senior, and you are considering law school because you don't know what else to do, you should reconsider. Maybe you can't see yourself actually getting a job and working. Maybe you want 3 more years of something between college and adult life. Maybe you've convinced yourself that, in the present economy, it is actually the most rational choice to attend law school, thereby allowing yourself to enter the labor market in 3 years--- by which point things will have improved (hopefully).

If these are the only factors weighing in favor of your decision to attend law school, then I urge you not to attend. Even assuming that there is some validity to the notion of waiting for a better economy to enter the labor market, you would still be ill-served by law school. Even assuming you attend law school for free, on a full scholarship, you will still need to have money for living expenses. And that money aside, you will still be spending 3 years of your life in an endeavor that may well prove to be worthless. Yes, worthless. Maybe you'll know how to "think like a [law student]." But if you're not going to use that law degree, then the tiny bit of knowledge you gained in law school is completely worthless.

(2) "A law degree is very versatile." Law schools tell you this so that you will attend law school. Let's be clear: Law schools are not in the business of educating people in the law and helping those people get jobs as practicing lawyers. It would be nice if that were the case, but its simply not. Law schools are, instead, in the business making money for themselves by selling law degrees. That's it.

Example: Ted Brassfield is having an existential crisis because he can't get a job with the Department of Justice, and he's mad as hell. He's demanding answers from everybody: from Indiana University, where he attended law school, and even from the President of the United States. But the problem here is that Ted Brassfield and many others attend law school on the false assumption that the law school (1) owes them something more than a piece of paper and (2) will actually for do work for them; will help them achieve their legal dreams. But that's a fairy tale.

Yes, that fairy tale is sold in the form of glossy pamphlets and catalogs, visiting student days with wine and beer and dinner served, and (often) trumped up or unverifiable statistics about employment outcomes and salaries. But its a fairy tale nonetheless. And everyone entering into this real has a duty to be mindful that his or her interests do not align with the interests of law schools.

So the bit about a law degree being versatile and flexible and opening hundreds of doors--- yes, you get a law degree, and all the sudden you open a wardrobe door and there is Narnia --- that's disingenuous at best.

Maybe if you obtain a law degree from one of the truly elite law schools in the country, that degree can open many doors for you. But if you get your law degree from somewhere further down the line, its not opening doors. Its not giving you more options. Its just saddling you with debt and/or wasting your time.

I have met people who went to law school wanting to be ibankers and thinking "a law degree will make me stand out. It will give me a leg up in the process." Bull. I have met people who went to law school wanting to do international marketing, thinking - somehow - in that fantastical world of the 22 -year-old college senior dreaming about the future - that a law degree could possibly be useful for that. Again, ridiculous. As a rule, unless you attend one of the very best schools in the country, you should only go to law school if you (1) want to be a lawyer and (2) believe that school will give you a reasonable chance of attaining that goal.

(3) "I hate law school and I really can't see myself being a lawyer." A common refrain among people in categories (1) and (2). If you don't want to be a lawyer, and there is not some other, specific job that you _know_ your law degree will help you acquire, don't go. If you're a 1L in these circumstances, drop out.

(4) "I'm going to have $200,000 in debt and I have no idea how I'll ever pay that back." Even if you do want to be a lawyer, and you have been dreaming of being a lawyer since you were six-- yes, one of those people - then consider the economic implications. I feel that so many people from nice, middle class or upper-middle class backgrounds never really concern themselves with money when they're young. Money is always there. The bills are always paid. Often, the parents pay for college. And then these kids go to law school, and take out $150,000 in loans, and initially, that money doesn't seem real. Its like Monopoly money. Its pretend money. Its money they don't have to worry about, because it can wait 3 years, until they graduate law school and get their dream jobs--- then it will all be worth it.

Real talk: That's real money. That $150k you took out in loans--- you'll have to pay that back, with interest. If you're committed to a life of public interest work and abject poverty, and your school will pay those loans back for you, then you're a saint and I commend you for your selflessness and your service to mankind. But if you don't fall into that category, and you viewed a law degree as something that would help you earn a good living, then you need to consider the financial realities. What about ever buying a house? What about marriage and children? What about $1,000+ in loan payments every month for years? Don't ignore these considerations. Address them upfront, before deciding that law school - or a particular law school - is right for you.

Lincoln plans to study modern legal history at Durham University in England for a year, at which point her prospects, she hopes, will be better.

Absurd.

Forcing Law Firms to Use Quotas in Staffing Cases Is a Very Bad, No Good, Terrible Idea

Federal Judge Orders Class Counsel to Try for More Diverse Legal Team | ABA Journal

"This proposed class includes thousands of participants, both male and female, arguably from diverse backgrounds, and it is therefore important to all concerned that there is evidence of diversity, in terms of race and gender, in the class counsel I appoint," Baer wrote. “It is hereby ordered that co-lead counsel … shall make every effort to assign to this matter at least one minority lawyer and one woman lawyer with requisite experience.”

Where to begin.

We operate in a framework wherein employers are already prohibited from discriminating against employees on the basis of race or gender, and rightfully so. Given that framework, it strikes me as unnecessary for the government to step in and mandate that a law firm give out internal work assignments to attorneys of a particular race or gender. To the extent an attorney at any firm feels they are being discriminated against based on these factors, they have adequate remedies available at law. But this firm in particular, Labaton Sucharow is an exceptionally good one, an incredibly reputable one, and one with some very well-known, high-ranking minority partners. Making such a drastic step both seemingly inappropriate and entirely uncalled for.

Turning to the issue of how law firms work, the order is even more suspect. Lets say we have a firm of 50 attorneys. Of these attorneys, 5 work on a particular case. The other 45 attorneys work on other cases. Given the demographics of law schools and law firms, it would be entirely reasonable for a particular case to be staffed without having both a female attorney and a minority attorney. In a big securities class action that has been going on for years, it would be entirely inefficient for a firm to restructure the staffing on the case to ensure that it met a particular quota.

Beyond this, why are the quotas limited to categories of "woman" and "minority"? What about further breaking it down to ensure there is at least one Asian attorney. One black attorney. One Hispanic attorney. One attorney who is Catholic. Doubtless there are members of the class who are gay, so why not require at least one gay attorney on the case?

If the concern is that big cases are not staffed with enough diversity, then that concern is best addressed by focusing causes rather than symptoms. To be clear, ordering firms to staff big cases with a certain mix of attorneys does nothing to address the underlying issue itself. That issue, generally speaking, is a lack of diversity at big firms.

But let's be real: Nobody can say, with a straight face, that prominent law firms engage in a pattern or practice of discriminatory hiring. These law firms hire primarily from elite schools. As you work your way down from the top, starting with Yale and Harvard, its a sliding scale that mixes school, grades, law review, work experience, connections, and other credentials. Young people who are black or Hispanic are far less likely to go to college, let alone law school, let alone an elite law school that would set them up for a shot at jobs with prominent law firms.

So when a prominant law firm staffs a case with a team of 5 attorneys, most of them white and most of them male, it is not a product of that law firm engaging in any sort of discriminatory conduct. It is, instead, quite simply a natural product of larger societal structures. So if someone wants a more diverse mix of attorneys working on big cases at big firms, they should start at the bottom, trying to steer a more diverse mix of people into the front end of that pipeline.

Ted Brassfield and the Bar Exam

There are lots of people who pass the bar, but spend months completing the "background investigation." I say this from experience. I took the Florida Bar Exam in July 2009, passed, and had to wait a year before I was actually admitted. The problem: (1) My father's name is John, he is bankrupt, has liens against property he owns, and the Florida Bar initially believed that we were the same person (2) I have lived all over the country since I was 18 (3) I was subject to "discipline" at Cornell for swimming in a lake. Yeah, that's right.

So I'm not so quick to assume that Ted Brassfield has already failed the bar exam, let alone failed it multiple times. His blog indicated that he had taken the Maryland Bar Exam last year. He is not admitted in Maryland, but that alone is not dispositive. He could have passed the Maryland Bar and the hold-up could be due to administrative hassles. But if that were the case, it would make little sense for him to take the Colorado Bar, unless he were planning to move back to Colorado. One of the many reporters who interviewed him should have asked him about this--- asked whether he was planning a move back to Colorado and what happened with the Maryland Bar.

Unfortunately, real journalists are a dying breed, and nobody saw fit to ask Ted Brassfield any tough questions. They were too concerned with the fragile state of his dead or dying American dream.

30 Year Old Law Student and the American Dream

[Story by DailyKos blogger Liveatleeds]

One of the major media talking points coming out of the Obama CNBC Town Hall Forum is the 30 year old recent law school graduate who asked President Obama if the American Dream is dead. The predicate for that extremely loaded inquiry was that this particular 30 year old recent law school graduate cannot find a job, is swimming in student loan debt, and apparently doesn't have the means to contemplate getting married and starting a family. This particular law student also laid his poor job prospects, inability to pay his debt, and his failing love life at the feet of the president, who has apparently allowed the inspiration that was cultivated back on the campaign trail die. He now complains after the town hall that President Obama didn't answer his question.

Having been there myself (graduating from law school without a job and a lot of student loan debt), I don't want to pick on this guy's misery too much. However, I think it is important to understand just who this guy is, where he is coming from, and the most likely causes of his predicament. I would argue that his situation is certainly not the fault of President Obama, has nothing to do with "letting inspiration die," and should in no way be seen as a valid assessment of the viability of the American Dream.

First, a disclaimer. I don't personally know Mr. Brassfield, or know anything about his situation firsthand. My source of information about Mr. Brassfield is an interview he gave to the National Law Journal, which can be found here.http://www.law.com/... The following is my interpretation of Mr. Brassfield's situation, based upon my personal knowledge of the law, law schools, law firms, and the legal job market. I candidly admit that I could be wrong about these conclusions, so if anyone personally knows Mr. Brassfield or anything about him, please feel free to chime in and correct me.

His name is Ted Brassfield. He is originally from Colorado. He now lives in Washington, DC. He apparently had the good fortune to attend Princeton University for his undergraduate education, as he found out about the CNBC Town Hall through the Princeton Club of Washington, DC, and submitted a question through the club (denoting membership). For those who might not know this, Princeton is generally considered to be one of the very best colleges in the entire country, if not the best.

Based upon Mr. Brassfield's current age (30), he most probably graduated from Princeton in 2001 or 2002. After Princeton, did not immediately decide to attend graduate school or law school, but instead entered the job market. He apparently worked from around 2001-2002 to 2006, when he entered law school. He describes his work experience in this manner:

"I had worked a variety of jobs before landing a gig as a researcher in a management consulting agency. I built myself a potentially lucrative career and had some really good prospects, but I didn't want it."

Again, I don't know this guy, but if someone who was applying for a job with me described his work experience in this manner, I would presume that he had worked in retail or restaurants right out of Princeton, took some job that didn't pay a lot but that dangled the promise of commissions if he generated business, and that he did not succeed in this endeavor (note "potentially lucrative" and "really good prospects" -- not "lucrative" and "had some really good clients"). I would also presume that his level of academic achievement at Princeton was, shall we say, less than exemplary.

So, in 2005, with the economy in full-throttle mode (height of the housing market), Mr. Brassfield decides to leave his "potentially lucrative" management consulting career, and to apply for law school. He is accepted to law school at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law -- Bloomington. Now, don't get me wrong -- Indiana U. is a fine law school, currently ranked Number 27 in the country by the US News and World Report rankings. I also personally happen to know some very fine lawyers who are graduates of that school. However, Indiana U.'s law school is not Yale or Harvard. Generally, one must really excel (top 10% or 15% of the class) at a law school like Indiana to even be considered for a job at one of the law firms ranked in the American Lawyer Top 100, under even the best economic circumstances. I would also posit that for people who do not graduate in the top third or at least top half of the class at a school like Indiana, it has been more difficult to obtain any legal job than one might be led to believe by law school admissions, even in the best of economic times.

I might also add that Mr. Brassfield's acceptance at Indiana U. is a further indication that he was not at the top of his class at Princeton, and most likely had an undistinguished academic record there. He would have been an out-of-state student at Indiana (he is from Colorado), paying out of state tuition (which is no bargain -- over $40000 per year in 2010-2011), so it is unlikely that he was accepted to some more highly rated law schools but declined to attend for economic reasons. It is more likely that Indiana was the best law school to which Mr. Brassfield was accepted.

Despite being accepted to Indiana Law in 2005, Mr. Brassfield then decides to defer his admission for a year. Again, this is just the way in which I would interpret this if I was interviewing Mr. Brassfield and was presented with his story, but my sense would be that his "really good prospects" got the better of him in 2005-2006 (when the economy was rolling) so he decided to chase the dollars and put off law school for a year. He of course now regrets deferring, because had he not deferred, he would have graduated from law school in May 2008, prior to the market crash of September 2008 and in a marginally better legal job market.

Needless to say, things didn't work out for Mr. Brassfield in 2005 with whatever he was doing, so he ultimately matriculates at Indiana Law in 2006. While Mr. Brassfield indicates that he "didn't want to work for a private law firm while in law school," this is just law student doublespeak for "I didn't get the kind of grades to land a job at a private law firm." As a consequence, Mr. Brassfield takes interesting but unpaid internships in the government (HUD, EEOC, US Attorneys' Office) as his law school jobs. However, these types of internships typically do not lead to permanent legal jobs. Unfortunately for Mr. Brassfield and for thousands of other law students who do not get top grades at any law school outside the Top 15, this is just the extremely harsh reality of the legal job market -- highly competitive even in good economic times, and brutally competitive when the economy took its precipitous fall.

Mr. Brassfield then graduates from Indiana Law in 2009, presumably in May 2009. It can be reasonably inferred that he has failed the bar at least one time, as he reports that he is not a licensed attorney, and is awaiting the results of the Colorado bar examination. For those not in the know, the bar exams are offered twice a year -- in late summer/early fall, and again in midwinter (usually February). So, if Mr. Brassfield is awaiting the results of the Colorado bar examination in September 2010, that is most probably the August/September 2010 session of the bar exam, meaning that he might have already failed twice (late summer 2009 and midwinter 2010).

It should also be added that Mr. Brassfield reports now living in Washington, DC, which is one of the most competitive legal markets in the country, again without regard to the state of the economy. This certainly isn't helping his current job prospects.

Again, I don't know Mr. Brassfield. He is probably a very nice guy, and I'm sure that he is freaked out about not being able to find a permanent legal job. But to suggest that this is somehow the fault of President Obama, that the president is letting inspiration die, that the current economy has anything at all to do with this . . . come on, Mr. Brassfield. You know that you yourself have something to do with the situation in which you now find yourself. The legal job market is a hard one even in the best of times. You've also probably figured out that law school admissions sold you a bill of goods about your potential employability, so if you want to point the finger someplace, I would start there.

Oh, and the American Dream? Still alive and well, thank you.

Ted Brassfield's American Dream II

(Part One)
Yesterday was a big day for Ted Brassfield. In many respects, it was an even bigger day for Ted Brassfield than the day when he stood up, in front of America, and asked the President what happened to his American dream. Yesterday, Ted Brassfield got calls from the National Law Journal, Fox News, and dozens of other publications. Yesterday, Ted Brassfield appeared on CNN! And when the interviewer asked Ted Brassfield whether or not he got the answer he was looking for, Ted Brassfield had this to say:

I think that unfortunately I felt that the president answered very effectively all of the other questions he was asked by the audience. But like Velma, I thought that I had given him a lay-up to say this is why you should still have hope. And he didn't say that. He didn't answer it at all.

So at the end of the day, Ted Brassfield stood up in front of America, on national television, and asked the president a question about his American dream in the hope that the President would respond, "Keep hope alive, Ted Brassfield."

And when interviewed by CNN, Ted Brassfield went on to explain how he came to find himself here, with his dead American dream, just scraping on a couple trips a year to California and Asia, nice restaurants, and a nice pad in a nice NW DC neighborhood:

Society says if you work hard, if you go to school, we will have good jobs for you.

I do appreciate that many law school graduates are having a hard time finding jobs as practicing attorneys (let alone good jobs). Further, I believe that certain law schools have intentionally misled students about their employment prospects for years. But I find it hard to take someone like Ted Brassfield seriously.

Ted Brassfield is a grown man. Let's not forget that. He's an adult. He's not a child. He's not a college student. He is a 30 year old man, highly educated, well-credentialed.

He made the choice to attend law school. Nobody insisted on it. Nobody forced him into it. He made the choice to go to a particular school, a good school, that charged a certain amount of tuition. The odds are that Ted Brassfield could have gone to other schools that cost him less money. The odds are that Ted Brassfield could have forgone law school altogether if economic considerations were of paramount importance.

Ted Brassfield made the choice to take out student loans. So did lots of us. Ted Brassfield made the choice to put off getting married and having a family--- so did lots of us.

And now, he's made the choice not to settle when it comes to jobs. Let's be clear: Ted Brassfield moved to Washington D.C. to get a job with the federal government. He made this clear in an interview with the National Law Journal:

I'm primarily interested in the government sector. The experience I've had interning at the [U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development] and the [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] and the U.S. Attorney's Office here in D.C showed me that the resources the federal government can bring to bear are incredible-specifically with regard to training and support.

So Ted Brassfield's story is not that of a man who can't find a job, or a legal job, or a good job, but instead, the story of a man who insists on a particular job, or particular kind of job, or job of a certain caliber.

I know plenty of smart people who graduated from good law schools - schools just as good as Ted Brassfield's law school - who could not get the jobs they wanted. Where are these people and what are they doing? Working. Some work at small law firms, some went out on their own, some got state court clerkships, some are repairing computers, some are teaching boxing lessons.

But to my knowledge, not one of these people views his life as some epic tragedy. Not one of these people would stand up, in a town hall meeting, in front of the entire country, and whine to the President about the death of his American dream.

That takes a certain sense of self-importance. That takes a certain amount of self-pity. That takes someone special. Someone like Ted Brassfield.