Are law schools non-profit institutions?

(Please Ask Questions and Answer Questions)
prelaw10
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:24 am

Are law schools non-profit institutions?

Postby prelaw10 » Sat Jun 26, 2010 12:55 pm

Most top undergraduate institutions, despite ridiculous sticker prices, are non-profit. The ivy leagues for sure are nonprofit. Are top law schools also considered non-profit organizations?

How about medical and business schools?

I have no reason for asking, just curious.

User avatar
Cleareyes
Posts: 408
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:59 pm

Re: Are law schools non-profit institutions?

Postby Cleareyes » Sat Jun 26, 2010 12:58 pm

No. Harvard University is a non-profit organization, but Harvard Law School is an affiliated publicly traded corporation with shareholders and dividends and a board of directors, all that jazz. They're actually on the NASDAQ. You can buy a share but it won't help you get in.

motiontodismiss
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:36 pm

Re: Are law schools non-profit institutions?

Postby motiontodismiss » Sat Jun 26, 2010 1:02 pm

They're nonprofits in name only. I laugh at anyone who argues that NYU is a nonprofit (as an NYU Ugrad alumnus).

prelaw10
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:24 am

Re: Are law schools non-profit institutions?

Postby prelaw10 » Sat Jun 26, 2010 1:05 pm

thanks for the quick answer. makes sense since law/med/business are professional schools.

User avatar
Cleareyes
Posts: 408
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:59 pm

Re: Are law schools non-profit institutions?

Postby Cleareyes » Sat Jun 26, 2010 1:06 pm

motiontodismiss wrote:They're nonprofits in name only. I laugh at anyone who argues that NYU is a nonprofit (as an NYU Ugrad alumnus).


Actually they're nonprofits in law too, which is a pretty damn important distinction.

But even beyond that there are all sorts of implications that non-profit status has. You might argue they are still greedy for tuition and building endowments and overpaying their administrators, and hey, I agree, but they don't have to worry about shareholders, they don't have to deal with analysts or hostile takeovers etc...

Being a non-profit =/= being a charity.

BenJ
Posts: 1353
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:58 pm

Re: Are law schools non-profit institutions?

Postby BenJ » Sun Jun 27, 2010 9:55 am

prelaw10 wrote:thanks for the quick answer. makes sense since law/med/business are professional schools.


LOL. He was being sarcastic. They're non-profit. I think the ABA doesn't accredit for-profit law schools.

CanadianWolf
Posts: 10439
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: Are law schools non-profit institutions?

Postby CanadianWolf » Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:18 am

Don't tell that to John Marshall, Florida Coastal & Charlotte law schools among one or two other "for-profit" law schools. Phoenix School of Law is another ABA accredited for profit law school. Also research Western States & Thomas Jefferson law schools regarding for profit status.
Many "non-profit" law schools are profitable but the profits are siphoned off by the non-profit mothership universities just like successful college football programs subsidize the entire athletic departments & non-revenue sports at major universities.

User avatar
nealric
Posts: 2398
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: Are law schools non-profit institutions?

Postby nealric » Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:20 pm

The vast majority are 501(c)(3) non-profits. That doesn't mean they don't engage in rent-seeking behavior though.

True for-profit law schools are pretty much exclusively in the 4th Tier and should be avoided at all costs. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that a for-profit educational institution presents a fundamental conflict of interest with its students. Every dollar of profit that goes to the executives and shareholders could be going to the students. The ABA should not be accrediting for-profit schools and the DOE should not be subsidizing them by handing out loans to attend them.

User avatar
Eugenie Danglars
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:04 pm

Re: Are law schools non-profit institutions?

Postby Eugenie Danglars » Thu Jul 08, 2010 9:02 am

You can check with the IRS if you're curious about a specific institution:
http://www.irs.gov/app/pub-78/

rejectmaster
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:20 pm

Re: Are law schools non-profit institutions?

Postby rejectmaster » Thu Jul 08, 2010 12:07 pm

nealric wrote:The vast majority are 501(c)(3) non-profits. That doesn't mean they don't engage in rent-seeking behavior though.

True for-profit law schools are pretty much exclusively in the 4th Tier and should be avoided at all costs. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that a for-profit educational institution presents a fundamental conflict of interest with its students. Every dollar of profit that goes to the executives and shareholders could be going to the students. The ABA should not be accrediting for-profit schools and the DOE should not be subsidizing them by handing out loans to attend them.



too bad the ABA is a gutless, greedy charade.

Cannot hold a candle to the AMA or the crown jewel of professional associations, the ADA.

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: Are law schools non-profit institutions?

Postby General Tso » Thu Jul 08, 2010 12:14 pm

rejectmaster wrote:
nealric wrote:The vast majority are 501(c)(3) non-profits. That doesn't mean they don't engage in rent-seeking behavior though.

True for-profit law schools are pretty much exclusively in the 4th Tier and should be avoided at all costs. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that a for-profit educational institution presents a fundamental conflict of interest with its students. Every dollar of profit that goes to the executives and shareholders could be going to the students. The ABA should not be accrediting for-profit schools and the DOE should not be subsidizing them by handing out loans to attend them.



too bad the ABA is a gutless, greedy charade.

Cannot hold a candle to the AMA or the crown jewel of professional associations, the ADA.


The AMA and ADA aren't gutless, greedy charades? I think the AMA at least is far more sinister than the ABA.

rejectmaster
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:20 pm

Re: Are law schools non-profit institutions?

Postby rejectmaster » Thu Jul 08, 2010 12:58 pm

General Tso wrote:
rejectmaster wrote:
nealric wrote:The vast majority are 501(c)(3) non-profits. That doesn't mean they don't engage in rent-seeking behavior though.

True for-profit law schools are pretty much exclusively in the 4th Tier and should be avoided at all costs. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that a for-profit educational institution presents a fundamental conflict of interest with its students. Every dollar of profit that goes to the executives and shareholders could be going to the students. The ABA should not be accrediting for-profit schools and the DOE should not be subsidizing them by handing out loans to attend them.



too bad the ABA is a gutless, greedy charade.

Cannot hold a candle to the AMA or the crown jewel of professional associations, the ADA.


The AMA and ADA aren't gutless, greedy charades? I think the AMA at least is far more sinister than the ABA.



How could that possibly be?

And the ADA is far from gutless, it doesn't allow dental schools to be ranked nor does it prop them up, as Emory, Georgetown, and Northwestern all closed their dental schools. It cares about its practitioners and is thorough and confident that all dental schools are up to a certain standard.

The AMA has been accused of gatekeeping the profession too much. This is fine! Doctors should make a ton of money! Medical schools are unfortunately ranked, but whichever US/EU/Canadian Medical school a student receives an MD from, they are pretty much equally eligible for residencies because Medical schools are held up to a much higher standard than law schools are.

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: Are law schools non-profit institutions?

Postby General Tso » Thu Jul 08, 2010 1:04 pm

rejectmaster wrote:
How could that possibly be?

And the ADA is far from gutless, it doesn't allow dental schools to be ranked nor does it prop them up, as Emory, Georgetown, and Northwestern all closed their dental schools. It cares about its practitioners and is thorough and confident that all dental schools are up to a certain standard.

The AMA has been accused of gatekeeping the profession too much. This is fine! Doctors should make a ton of money! Medical schools are unfortunately ranked, but whichever US/EU/Canadian Medical school a student receives an MD from, they are pretty much equally eligible for residencies because Medical schools are held up to a much higher standard than law schools are.


No, doctors should make what the free market is willing to pay. That can't happen when the AMA restricts doctor supply by opening ZERO new med schools since 1980 and keeping the number of doctors essentially stagnant over that period even though the US population has both aged and increased in numbers by 80 million. What we have in America is essentially a medical monopoly, thanks largely to the AMA.

It's no coincidence that Americans pay over 2x as much as people in other countries for medical care, while US doctors make over 2x what doctors in other industrialized countries earn.

Another anti-market practice is the restriction of information. The AMA forbids its members from disclosing their prices and from any form of price competition.

http://wallstreetpit.com/5769-the-medic ... es-so-high

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Are law schools non-profit institutions?

Postby rayiner » Thu Jul 08, 2010 1:05 pm

Cleareyes wrote:
motiontodismiss wrote:They're nonprofits in name only. I laugh at anyone who argues that NYU is a nonprofit (as an NYU Ugrad alumnus).


Actually they're nonprofits in law too, which is a pretty damn important distinction.

But even beyond that there are all sorts of implications that non-profit status has. You might argue they are still greedy for tuition and building endowments and overpaying their administrators, and hey, I agree, but they don't have to worry about shareholders, they don't have to deal with analysts or hostile takeovers etc...

Being a non-profit =/= being a charity.


Right.

rejectmaster
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:20 pm

Re: Are law schools non-profit institutions?

Postby rejectmaster » Thu Jul 08, 2010 1:12 pm

General Tso wrote:
rejectmaster wrote:
How could that possibly be?

And the ADA is far from gutless, it doesn't allow dental schools to be ranked nor does it prop them up, as Emory, Georgetown, and Northwestern all closed their dental schools. It cares about its practitioners and is thorough and confident that all dental schools are up to a certain standard.

The AMA has been accused of gatekeeping the profession too much. This is fine! Doctors should make a ton of money! Medical schools are unfortunately ranked, but whichever US/EU/Canadian Medical school a student receives an MD from, they are pretty much equally eligible for residencies because Medical schools are held up to a much higher standard than law schools are.


No, doctors should make what the free market is willing to pay. That can't happen when the AMA restricts doctor supply by opening ZERO new med schools since 1980 and keeping the number of doctors essentially stagnant over that period even though the US population has both aged and increased in numbers by 80 million. What we have in America is essentially a medical monopoly, thanks largely to the AMA.

It's no coincidence that Americans pay over 2x as much as people in other countries for medical care, while US doctors make over 2x what doctors in other industrialized countries earn.

Another anti-market practice is the restriction of information. The AMA forbids its members from disclosing their prices and from any form of price competition.

http://wallstreetpit.com/5769-the-medic ... es-so-high



That keeps the best minds competing for medical school acceptance! You can't get a crap score on the MCAT or DAT and get into Medical School or Dental School. You can bomb the LSAT and get into a law school that probably shouldn't even be open.

And we pay more for health care here because insurance companies and malpractice laws/insurance really drain physicians/dentists. I'm the first in my family to pursue law over Medicine or Dentistry and that expense dominates conversation at family gatherings.

Don't get me wrong, I've never wanted to pursue a Health field, I'm just saying that the AMA and ADA do a better job supporting their professionals than the ABA does.

User avatar
GeePee
Posts: 1273
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:35 pm

Re: Are law schools non-profit institutions?

Postby GeePee » Thu Jul 08, 2010 1:18 pm

General Tso wrote:
rejectmaster wrote:
How could that possibly be?

And the ADA is far from gutless, it doesn't allow dental schools to be ranked nor does it prop them up, as Emory, Georgetown, and Northwestern all closed their dental schools. It cares about its practitioners and is thorough and confident that all dental schools are up to a certain standard.

The AMA has been accused of gatekeeping the profession too much. This is fine! Doctors should make a ton of money! Medical schools are unfortunately ranked, but whichever US/EU/Canadian Medical school a student receives an MD from, they are pretty much equally eligible for residencies because Medical schools are held up to a much higher standard than law schools are.


No, doctors should make what the free market is willing to pay. That can't happen when the AMA restricts doctor supply by opening ZERO new med schools since 1980 and keeping the number of doctors essentially stagnant over that period even though the US population has both aged and increased in numbers by 80 million. What we have in America is essentially a medical monopoly, thanks largely to the AMA.

It's no coincidence that Americans pay over 2x as much as people in other countries for medical care, while US doctors make over 2x what doctors in other industrialized countries earn.

Another anti-market practice is the restriction of information. The AMA forbids its members from disclosing their prices and from any form of price competition.

http://wallstreetpit.com/5769-the-medic ... es-so-high

Additionally, the AMA refuses to recognize a lot of legitimate non-traditional means of treatment and care, which gives patients wrong ideas about what constitutes "good care" and helps fuel the prescription-crazy treatment that we get today. Furthermore, the AMA has done little to nothing to help protect its doctors against the rampant malpractice suits, causing doctors to over-test and over-treat in fear of being sued. The result is a system that has the highest per-capita cost of insurance for very mediocre care results, despite the presence of the best technology available to doctors. Some of it is lifestyle-driven, but a lot of it is poor management.

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: Are law schools non-profit institutions?

Postby General Tso » Thu Jul 08, 2010 1:19 pm

rejectmaster wrote:
That keeps the best minds competing for medical school acceptance! You can't get a crap score on the MCAT or DAT and get into Medical School or Dental School. You can bomb the LSAT and get into a law school that probably shouldn't even be open.

And we pay more for health care here because insurance companies and malpractice laws/insurance really drain physicians/dentists. I'm the first in my family to pursue law over Medicine or Dentistry and that expense dominates conversation at family gatherings.

Don't get me wrong, I've never wanted to pursue a Health field, I'm just saying that the AMA and ADA do a better job supporting their professionals than the ABA does.


I wouldn't dispute that last point. They do a wonderful job supporting their professionals. Unfortunately, they also do a wonderful job of bilking the rest of the country and the federal government.

Why do you feel like only the "best minds" should be doctors? Numerous studies have shown that American doctors are no better than those in other countries. For all the money we spend on those "best minds", we are still less healthy than other countries. Part of that is diet and lifestyle related, but I have never seen a study that demonstrates any public benefits from the AMA's restrictive medical education scheme. If you have one, do share.

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: Are law schools non-profit institutions?

Postby General Tso » Thu Jul 08, 2010 1:26 pm

GeePee wrote:Additionally, the AMA refuses to recognize a lot of legitimate non-traditional means of treatment and care, which gives patients wrong ideas about what constitutes "good care" and helps fuel the prescription-crazy treatment that we get today. Furthermore, the AMA has done little to nothing to help protect its doctors against the rampant malpractice suits, causing doctors to over-test and over-treat in fear of being sued. The result is a system that has the highest per-capita cost of insurance for very mediocre care results, despite the presence of the best technology available to doctors. Some of it is lifestyle-driven, but a lot of it is poor management.


At least two reputable studies have shown that at most, the costs associated with medical malpractice suits make up at MOST 3-5% of the total healthcare costs in America. Most states have enacted such restrictive tort reform that in many cases lawyers won't even take a malpractice case. In California, 250k is the cap on general damages (see MICRA).

Malpractice is just a convenient excuse for doctors to perform unnecessary tests to further bilk the public. As far as I can tell, malpractice law hasn't adequately served the purposes of compensating victims or raising the standards of care among physicians. It is a deeply flawed area of the law, although its problems are often unfairly pinned on lawyers.

rejectmaster
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:20 pm

Re: Are law schools non-profit institutions?

Postby rejectmaster » Thu Jul 08, 2010 1:27 pm

General Tso wrote:
rejectmaster wrote:
That keeps the best minds competing for medical school acceptance! You can't get a crap score on the MCAT or DAT and get into Medical School or Dental School. You can bomb the LSAT and get into a law school that probably shouldn't even be open.

And we pay more for health care here because insurance companies and malpractice laws/insurance really drain physicians/dentists. I'm the first in my family to pursue law over Medicine or Dentistry and that expense dominates conversation at family gatherings.

Don't get me wrong, I've never wanted to pursue a Health field, I'm just saying that the AMA and ADA do a better job supporting their professionals than the ABA does.


I wouldn't dispute that last point. They do a wonderful job supporting their professionals. Unfortunately, they also do a wonderful job of bilking the rest of the country and the federal government.

Why do you feel like only the "best minds" should be doctors? Numerous studies have shown that American doctors are no better than those in other countries. For all the money we spend on those "best minds", we are still less healthy than other countries. Part of that is diet and lifestyle related, but I have never seen a study that demonstrates any public benefits from the AMA's restrictive medical education scheme. If you have one, do share.


With medical education approaching 90k a year COMPOUNDED with the assload of work/volunteering most med students did during undergrad, doctors have a right to be entitled.

So do T-14 grads who busted ass in college and law school and are struggling to find work.

I'm saying the ABA has allowed legal education to be trivialized.

Only the best minds should be doctors due to the rigor of the field and the fact that it is, essentially, guaranteed employment. Those who have the acumen to jump through the hoops are the only people that should be doctors. Especially now that RNs and PAs are able to do most of what a GP does, the requirements for physicians to enter specialized fields will become even higher.

and, I never mentioned "public benefit". That isn't the point. Law schools bring money to their parent institutions. Medical and Dental schools do not.

User avatar
let/them/eat/cake
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:20 pm

Re: Are law schools non-profit institutions?

Postby let/them/eat/cake » Thu Jul 08, 2010 1:30 pm

rejectmaster wrote:
nealric wrote:The vast majority are 501(c)(3) non-profits. That doesn't mean they don't engage in rent-seeking behavior though.

True for-profit law schools are pretty much exclusively in the 4th Tier and should be avoided at all costs. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that a for-profit educational institution presents a fundamental conflict of interest with its students. Every dollar of profit that goes to the executives and shareholders could be going to the students. The ABA should not be accrediting for-profit schools and the DOE should not be subsidizing them by handing out loans to attend them.



too bad the ABA is a gutless, greedy charade.

Cannot hold a candle to the AMA or the crown jewel of professional associations, the ADA.


intentional? if so, nice

rejectmaster
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:20 pm

Re: Are law schools non-profit institutions?

Postby rejectmaster » Thu Jul 08, 2010 1:34 pm

let/them/eat/cake wrote:
rejectmaster wrote:
nealric wrote:The vast majority are 501(c)(3) non-profits. That doesn't mean they don't engage in rent-seeking behavior though.

True for-profit law schools are pretty much exclusively in the 4th Tier and should be avoided at all costs. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that a for-profit educational institution presents a fundamental conflict of interest with its students. Every dollar of profit that goes to the executives and shareholders could be going to the students. The ABA should not be accrediting for-profit schools and the DOE should not be subsidizing them by handing out loans to attend them.



too bad the ABA is a gutless, greedy charade.

Cannot hold a candle to the AMA or the crown jewel of professional associations, the ADA.


It really casts a veneer of responsibility over the other professional boards while the ABA leaves many students to brace for unemployment.

intentional? if so, nice

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: Are law schools non-profit institutions?

Postby General Tso » Thu Jul 08, 2010 1:40 pm

With medical education approaching 90k a year COMPOUNDED with the assload of work/volunteering most med students did during undergrad, doctors have a right to be entitled.

So do T-14 grads who busted ass in college and law school and are struggling to find work.

And what about non T14 lawyers? What about a real estate developer who has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars and spent an 'assload' of time on his developments?

I don't really understand the point you are making. If this recent economic crisis has taught us anything, it's that spending a small fortune on tuition and an "assload" of extracurricular work doesn't entitle one to anything. See the NY Times article on the Colgate grad with no work since graduating in 2008. Or the WSJ article from a few days back about the NYU grad with 100k in debt who is earning 20k as a photography assistant.

Why are doctors "entitled" to security from the consequences of this recession but others are not? Because the AMA has purchased monopoly status for them from the US Govt, thats why.
I'm saying the ABA has allowed legal education to be trivialized.


The ABA has allowed the free market to control the legal job market. Bad for lawyers, but good for others.
Only the best minds should be doctors due to the rigor of the field and the fact that it is, essentially, guaranteed employment. Those who have the acumen to jump through the hoops are the only people that should be doctors. Especially now that RNs and PAs are able to do most of what a GP does, the requirements for physicians to enter specialized fields will become even higher.


But the number of applicants for med school has risen significantly while the number accepted has remained stagnant. Don't any of those turned away have the "acumen to jump through the hoops"?
and, I never mentioned "public benefit". That isn't the point. Law schools bring money to their parent institutions. Medical and Dental schools do not.


You are right. Health care is only a business for the benefit of private individuals, ie. hospital administrators, insurance executives, and doctors.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Are law schools non-profit institutions?

Postby rayiner » Thu Jul 08, 2010 1:51 pm

rejectmaster wrote:And we pay more for health care here because insurance companies and malpractice laws/insurance really drain physicians/dentists. I'm the first in my family to pursue law over Medicine or Dentistry and that expense dominates conversation at family gatherings.


A Harvard study showed that malpractice suits added $60 billion to the costs of a the $1,200 billion health care industry. That 5% is not entirely overhead --- a lot of it is payment to people injured by malpractice that have suffered actual losses. In the same study, an expert panel of doctors went over a selection of jury verdicts in malpractice cases, and found that over 70% of the time, the jury's judgement about whether actual malpractice had occurred was clearly correct, and when they erred, juries tended to err on the side of doctors.

The actual overhead in the process (litigation, insurance, etc) is probably on the order of 2%. That is not high price for what is essentially the only external quality-control mechanism in the medical system.

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: Are law schools non-profit institutions?

Postby General Tso » Thu Jul 08, 2010 1:56 pm

rayiner wrote:
rejectmaster wrote:And we pay more for health care here because insurance companies and malpractice laws/insurance really drain physicians/dentists. I'm the first in my family to pursue law over Medicine or Dentistry and that expense dominates conversation at family gatherings.


A Harvard study showed that malpractice suits added $60 billion to the costs of a the $1,200 billion health care industry. That 5% is not entirely overhead --- a lot of it is payment to people injured by malpractice that have suffered actual losses. In the same study, an expert panel of doctors went over a selection of jury verdicts in malpractice cases, and found that over 70% of the time, the jury's judgement about whether actual malpractice had occurred was clearly correct, and when they erred, juries tended to err on the side of doctors.

The actual overhead in the process (litigation, insurance, etc) is probably on the order of 2%. That is not high price for what is essentially the only external quality-control mechanism in the medical system.


Link to that study? I am very interested.

rejectmaster
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:20 pm

Re: Are law schools non-profit institutions?

Postby rejectmaster » Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:01 pm

A real estate developer who is getting bit did not do due diligence to determine the means by which people buy homes, and were misinformed by the prevailing opinion that real estate value always rises.

Pretty similar to the though process of many students at young, poorly-viewed law schools established to cash in for their parent institutions.

And yes, hard work and high intelligence should allow you to be entitled to work. Doesn't mean you'll get it, but its certainly deserved.

The Accrediting Boards/Professional Boards responsibility is not to the free market, its to their professionals. A lot of doctors disdain the AMA, under a quarter of doctors are actually members. One can't argue, though, that it has allowed doctors to continue to be able to financially justify the (at least) decade of their lives (not to mention the investment) devoted to medical education. Now, the AMA is allowing new medical schools to open, but slowly and subject to rigorous standards so that more students can be accepted.

To address the last point, I don't know why you're bringing hospital administrators and insurance executives in. I don't care about either of them. They can't be members of the AMA, unless they're MDs. The AMA is in bed with insurance and hospital administration for sure, and I disapprove of that but that too is tangential. It is a professional association, and nothing else. It is the closest thing that doctors have to a union, and as such should advocate them.




Return to “Law School FAQ”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests