Top Law Schools

http://www.scribd.com/doc/100657078/Macdonald-v-Cooley

The bottom line is that the statistics provided by Cooley and other law schools in a format required by the ABA were so vague and incomplete as to be meaningless and could not reasonably be relied upon. But, as put in the phrase we lawyers learn early in law school—caveat emptor.

So all those people who relied on the old stats should have known they were meaningless.

But didn't everyone rely on them?

Also - way to go ABA your requirements were so vague that no one should have taken them seriously. Great job in helping the profession.

Having read the Opinion, I agree with the judge.
The plaintiffs could not argue that Cooley's employment statistics were false. The fact that the defendants misinterpreted the data, or made bad assumptions (e.g. Employed to only mean Full-Time JD Required) does not make the data false.

The opinion references a case similar to what I would use as an example - a financial statement. Just because the reader doesn't understand, doesn't mean it's not true.

Can someone please post the citation or party names?

Cooley will never be stopped. But this isn't necessarily a bad thing, think of all the carpenters they keep employed making chairs for their libraries. Cooley is a boon for BIG-CARPENTRY.

Wonder what Cooley's celebration speech is going to be like. "The judge said we're toilet-tier bottom feeders, and therefore no reasonable person should ever trust our statistics, but we won anyway..."

I was about to say this is kind of a pyrrhic victory for Cooley. Sure they won the lawsuit, but they won in a decision that essentially called their school a POS with statistics that you would have to be kind of retarded to actually believe.

"Cooley, a for-profit law school, enrolls more law students than any other law school in the country–approximately 4,000."

RodneyBoonfield wrote:Can someone please post the citation or party names?

I posted the link to the decision, is that what you want?

Macdonald-v-Cooley

But no one answered my question, didn't almost everyone back in the day rely on the reported ABA employment stats?

Lawquacious wrote:"Cooley, a for-profit law school, enrolls more law students than any other law school in the country–approximately 4,000."

I know, so how much are they raking in every year? To me it is really morally wrong for these people to enrich themselves off the student loan debt of their students.

I love that the judge called out their ranking system!!

JamesChapman23 wrote:I was about to say this is kind of a pyrrhic victory for Cooley. Sure they won the lawsuit, but they won in a decision that essentially called their school a POS with statistics that you would have to be kind of retarded to actually believe.

I suspect that the people who went to Cooley in the first place are the ones who are uninformed and/or want to be lawyers by any means necessary. There will always be those who don't do their homework in addition to those who choose to ignore red flags. This will hardly hurt Cooley's recruiting prospects.

Lawquacious wrote:"Cooley, a for-profit law school, enrolls more law students than any other law school in the country–approximately 4,000."

Cooley is actually a nonprofit. "cooley law school is a private, nonprofit, independent law school accredited by the American Bar Association and the Higher Learning Commission. "
Source: http://www.cooley.edu/

lololol

Maybe someone can argue on appeal that the judge didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground because he couldn't tell the difference between a profit and a non-profit school?

Nice to know that corruption still protects its own.

JamesChapman23 wrote:I was about to say this is kind of a pyrrhic victory for Cooley. Sure they won the lawsuit, but they won in a decision that essentially called their school a POS with statistics that you would have to be kind of retarded to actually believe.

Yeah, that's exactly what this was. Basically, the school sucks so bad that you should have known better. It is a disappointing result, though.

Isn't this the second case to be tossed out in this way? I wanna say the same happened with NYLS.

romothesavior wrote:Isn't this the second case to be tossed out in this way? I wanna say the same happened with NYLS.

yessir

gaud wrote:

romothesavior wrote:Isn't this the second case to be tossed out in this way? I wanna say the same happened with NYLS.

yessir

What troubles me about these cases is how easily the judges say the information was so obviously bad that people should have known better than to rely on it.

We all know that people do rely on that data like it is a life saving device. I think maybe the plaintiffs could have presented the case better. They did, however, show the ABA as being as useless as it actually is.

sunynp wrote:I think maybe the plaintiffs could have presented the case better.

Score 1 for Cooley - prepare lawyers so badly they fail when they sue you for preparing them badly

I discovered both sides were represented by Cooley grads:

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/michig ... 831/67454/

Steve Hyder for Plaintiffs: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/steven-hyder/11/6a5/857
Cherie Lee for Defendants: http://www.martindale.com/Cherie-L-Beck ... lawyer.htm

The Movie Announcer Guy needs to read some taglines for this:

"Cooley v Cooley, a battle to the death for the fate of ... Cooley."

"Welcome to the Thunderdome, two Cooleys enter, one Cooley leaves"

"Cooley v Cooley," starring Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep

Wily wrote:Wonder what Cooley's celebration speech is going to be like. "The judge said we're toilet-tier bottom feeders, and therefore no reasonable person should ever trust our statistics, but we won anyway..."

The implication of these cases? Clearly, the "reasonable person" of Tort law fame is a lot smarter than the average law student at many law schools.

After working in a court for the past several months and seeing many an OSC, I am not surprised.

romothesavior wrote:

JamesChapman23 wrote:I was about to say this is kind of a pyrrhic victory for Cooley. Sure they won the lawsuit, but they won in a decision that essentially called their school a POS with statistics that you would have to be kind of retarded to actually believe.

Yeah, that's exactly what this was. Basically, the school sucks so bad that you should have known better. It is a disappointing result, though.

Isn't this the second case to be tossed out in this way? I wanna say the same happened with NYLS.

This one has fared better: http://abovethelaw.com/2012/03/twenty-m ... -lawsuits/.

In mass class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs often lose many of the early cases. It takes time to formulate the law to deal with novel injuries (That's what my Civ Pro prof. says anyway).

Paradoxically, given the basis the judges have given for dismissing several of these cases, I think a lawsuit against a T2 or even a T1 could fare better. I could see a successful lawsuit against UC Hastings or the University of Arkansas-Fayetville. Who is going to tell someone that the "reasonable person" would be skeptical of a "tier 1" law school's data or the data of the flagship law school of an entire state? That's where I'd like to see this headed. Next stop would be to hit other under performing, criminally non-transparent "good" schools like Emory, Minnesota, Illinois, UT, and eventually, Berkeley and Michigan.

The key is to start with a school bad enough that you can convince the judge that your bad fortune wasn't a fluke or a personal inadequacy but good enough such that the average person would view it as a reputable school with reliable data. Once there is one successful lawsuit, it will be easier to expand the playing field to other less than "ideal" law school defendants like Emory on the "high" side or Akron on the "low" side.

Perseus_I wrote:

romothesavior wrote:

JamesChapman23 wrote:I was about to say this is kind of a pyrrhic victory for Cooley. Sure they won the lawsuit, but they won in a decision that essentially called their school a POS with statistics that you would have to be kind of retarded to actually believe.

Yeah, that's exactly what this was. Basically, the school sucks so bad that you should have known better. It is a disappointing result, though.

Isn't this the second case to be tossed out in this way? I wanna say the same happened with NYLS.

This one has fared better: http://abovethelaw.com/2012/03/twenty-m ... -lawsuits/.

In mass class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs often lose many of the early cases. It takes time to formulate the law to deal with novel injuries (That's what my Civ Pro prof. says anyway).

Paradoxically, given the basis the judges have given for dismissing several of these cases, I think a lawsuit against a T2 or even a T1 could fare better. I could see a successful lawsuit against UC Hastings or the University of Arkansas-Fayetville. Who is going to tell someone that the "reasonable person" would be skeptical of a "tier 1" law school's data or the data of the flagship law school of an entire state? That's where I'd like to see this headed. Next stop would be to hit other under performing, criminally non-transparent "good" schools like Emory, Minnesota, Illinois, UT, and eventually, Berkeley and Michigan.

The key is to start with a school bad enough that you can convince the judge that your bad fortune wasn't a fluke or a personal inadequacy but good enough such that the average person would view it as a reputable school with reliable data. Once there is one successful lawsuit, it will be easier to expand the playing field to other less than "ideal" law school defendants like Emory on the "high" side or Akron on the "low" side.

probably. but it's more that it is regulatory capture and SL backing than anything.