Is the ABA being unethical w/r/t regulating law schools? Forum

[Garden District]

It seems like TLS and LST and others kind of assume the legal education wing of the ABA is being unethical by letting law schools run wild (see: http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/bl ... -interest/; also Paul Campos posts and others on here). Can someone explain how?

So, the ABA section (and council) on legal education regulates law schools. They set the standards for accreditation (places like Indiana Tech..) and reporting job data, the stuff we're concerned with. Lots of the members doing the regulating are involved with and making money from the same TTTTs that can't get their grads jobs and use misleading job stats despite charging $250k at sticker.

So, yeah, it seems like they tend to act in the interest of legal education admins and profs, not law students and (less clearly) not the profession or the public. But that's not against the ABA ethics rules or the law (actually it seems like antitrust stuff ties their hands a bit). Even if most of the members have a conflict of interests and seem to act in a self-serving way, they are still arguably applying standards people would consider relevant to ensuring quality legal education (libraries, etc.). So how is it unethical? I really want to think it is (because we are objectively getting screwed) but I can't get there.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

It seems like TLS and LST and others kind of assume the legal education wing of the ABA is being unethical by letting law schools run wild (see: http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/bl ... -interest/; also Paul Campos posts and others on here). Can someone explain how?

So, the ABA section (and council) on legal education regulates law schools. They set the standards for accreditation (places like Indiana Tech..) and reporting job data, the stuff we're concerned with. Lots of the members doing the regulating are involved with and making money from the same TTTTs that can't get their grads jobs and use misleading job stats despite charging $250k at sticker.

So, yeah, it seems like they tend to act in the interest of legal education admins and profs, not law students and (less clearly) not the profession or the public. But that's not against the ABA ethics rules or the law (actually it seems like antitrust stuff ties their hands a bit). Even if most of the members have a conflict of interests and seem to act in a self-serving way, they are still arguably applying standards people would consider relevant to ensuring quality legal education (libraries, etc.). So how is it unethical? I really want to think it is (because we are objectively getting screwed) but I can't get there.

Well, if your first paragraph is true, that is obviously a conflict of interest.

Secondly, I am sure you could make the argument both ways. Should the ABA be allowing places like Cooley to exist or is it the responsibility of the students to do their due diligence before attending? If not, well how far do you follow that logic? Should the ABA be handing out pamphlets telling people statistically for the vast majority of people they shouldn't attend law school unless they are getting money at the T-14?

At the end of the day, if you decide you want to sign at the bottom line that is your choice and you are signing that with no implicit guarantee that you will have a job, let alone a legal one.

Granted, I think we are rapidly approaching the point where allowing this type of behavior to continue will have vast socioeconomic consequences.

[Garden District]

Well, let's include the ABA's duty(? aspiration?) to regulate the legal profession in the interest of the public

The profession has a responsibility to assure that its regulations are conceived in the public interest and not in furtherance of parochial or self-interested concerns of the bar. [...] Neglect of these responsibilities compromises the independence of the profession and the public interest which it serves.

Churning out massively indebted kids who can barely get jobs (which makes them more likely to act unethically -- that's what state bars ask a million questions about credit card debt and stuff like that) poses risks to the public, harms the public perception of the profession, and harms the profession itself (in that it invites further regulatory intervention from other government branches, compromising the independence of the profession -- which also harms the public).

Is that even an ethical consideration though? Maybe greatest good for the greatest number sort of ethics.

[acr]

As a previous poster mentioned, I think people who attend law school should do their due diligence before committing to anything. Anyone planning on committing over $300K or even over $100K should make a fully informed decision. So I think caveat emptor applies when students have the disposition of "fuck it I have nothing to do with my liberal arts degree so I'm gonna sign up for a TTT with no scholarship money." With the vast amount of resources available today (LST, ATL, TLS, etc. etc.) there is no reason to go into law school and be surprised when employment prospects are dismal and debt is sky high.

I think that the ABA's duty falls into regulating the law schools to make sure they aren't actively misrepresenting employment statistics/costs or deliberately exploiting students. They actually do a decent job of this. As long as the truthful information is out there, then I have no problem with how the ABA operates. Maybe kids who go into that kind of debt without truly understanding that decision need to learn that life lesson. An expensive lesson, no doubt, but mommy and daddy can't make decisions for them forever.

I do think that the ABA could do a better job at helping point students in the right direction. For example, I was recently emailed a pamphlet for New Orleans Law School that tried to recruit me because New Orleans is the "#1 Brainpower City." While this might be truthful via some insignificant metric, I think it's deceptive advertising because I know kids who have matriculated at schools based on similar advertising techniques (i.e. "#1 city for job growth," "#3 inexpensive city to live," so on and so forth).

Now, if you're asking if what law schools are doing is ethical, then that's a different discussion.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

As a previous poster mentioned, I think people who attend law school should do their due diligence before committing to anything. Anyone planning on committing over $300K or even over $100K should make a fully informed decision. So I think caveat emptor applies when students have the disposition of "fuck it I have nothing to do with my liberal arts degree so I'm gonna sign up for a TTT with no scholarship money." With the vast amount of resources available today (LST, ATL, TLS, etc. etc.) there is no reason to go into law school and be surprised when employment prospects are dismal and debt is sky high.

I think that the ABA's duty falls into regulating the law schools to make sure they aren't actively misrepresenting employment statistics/costs or deliberately exploiting students. They actually do a decent job of this. As long as the truthful information is out there, then I have no problem with how the ABA operates. Maybe kids who go into that kind of debt without truly understanding that decision need to learn that life lesson. An expensive lesson, no doubt, but mommy and daddy can't make decisions for them forever.

I do think that the ABA could do a better job at helping point students in the right direction. For example, I was recently emailed a pamphlet for New Orleans Law School that tried to recruit me because New Orleans is the "#1 Brainpower City." While this might be truthful via some insignificant metric, I think it's deceptive advertising because I know kids who have matriculated at schools based on similar advertising techniques (i.e. "#1 city for job growth," "#3 inexpensive city to live," so on and so forth).

Now, if you're asking if what law schools are doing is ethical, then that's a different discussion.

Another thing is the ABA has an incentive to let it go on. They make money off of these people as well.

With that being said, I'd say someone should be looking at this thinking this will cause massive socioeconomic issues over the long run.

[Garden District]

Don't ABA members acting in a regulatory capacity have an ethical obligation to protect the public interest? Or at the least, to not harm the public interest in furtherance of their own financial interests?

[reasonable_man]

By failing to adequately regulate law schools, the ABA hurts the general public.

With a growing group of law schools admitting classes comprised almost entirely of students that could not break a 150 on the LSAT, the ABA is permitting a new and growing generation of inferior lawyers to enter the market. If the bar were a real barrier, this would be less troubling, because the bar would be the gate keeper holding back the horde of dim would be attorneys. But many state bars / State Supreme Courts are actively seeking ways to assist the law school machine by lowering the standard for bar admission. On his way out the door, Chief Judge Lippmann of the New York Court of Appeals did away with the decades old New York bar exam (one known to be one of the hardest to pass in the country). Instead, this summer, for the first time ever, law grads in NY will take a Multi State bar that is orders of magnitude easier than the old NY bar exam. This change occurred in line with the worst bar passage rates in NY for more than 30 years on back to back administrations of the current bar and a continual decline in pass rates for the last several years. This also happens to coincide with the largest grouping of low LSAT scorers being admitted to law schools, possibly ever. Are all of these things directly related? Maybe. Maybe not. But with States moving to lower the standards for admission to the bar and law schools eliminating all standards for entry into law schools, the concern should be for the public, particularly poor people, who will be seeking legal assistance from people that 10-years ago would never have gotten into law school in the first place or passed a real bar exam.

The ABA is in the best position as a national accrediting body to institute real standards to protect the integrity of the profession and well being of the public the profession serves. But it won't do that because its very existence and prosperity is linked to the success of the law school machine.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

By failing to adequately regulate law schools, the ABA hurts the general public.

With a growing group of law schools admitting classes comprised almost entirely of students that could not break a 150 on the LSAT, the ABA is permitting a new and growing generation of inferior lawyers to enter the market. If the bar were a real barrier, this would be less troubling, because the bar would be the gate keeper holding back the horde of dim would be attorneys. But many state bars / State Supreme Courts are actively seeking ways to assist the law school machine by lowering the standard for bar admission. On his way out the door, Chief Judge Lippmann of the New York Court of Appeals did away with the decades old New York bar exam (one known to be one of the hardest to pass in the country). Instead, this summer, for the first time ever, law grads in NY will take a Multi State bar that is orders of magnitude easier than the old NY bar exam. This change occurred in line with the worst bar passage rates in NY for more than 30 years on back to back administrations of the current bar and a continual decline in pass rates for the last several years. This also happens to coincide with the largest grouping of low LSAT scorers being admitted to law schools, possibly ever. Are all of these things directly related? Maybe. Maybe not. But with States moving to lower the standards for admission to the bar and law schools eliminating all standards for entry into law schools, the concern should be for the public, particularly poor people, who will be seeking legal assistance from people that 10-years ago would never have gotten into law school in the first place or passed a real bar exam.

The ABA is in the best position as a national accrediting body to institute real standards to protect the integrity of the profession and well being of the public the profession serves. But it won't do that because its very existence and prosperity is linked to the success of the law school machine.

Right, that is why there needs to be an independent regulator.

At the end of the day people are and always will be self interested. If you don't understand that they don't care about whether or not you make it as lawyer and you sign on the dotted line for $150k+ up front loan that isn't tied to your outcome, you probably shouldn't be a lawyer.

How ironic.

PLOT TWIST- these morons borrowing all of this money are probably doing the right thing financially because the US is just monetizing it's debt.

[Garden District]

By failing to adequately regulate law schools, the ABA hurts the general public.

With a growing group of law schools admitting classes comprised almost entirely of students that could not break a 150 on the LSAT, the ABA is permitting a new and growing generation of inferior lawyers to enter the market. If the bar were a real barrier, this would be less troubling, because the bar would be the gate keeper holding back the horde of dim would be attorneys. But many state bars / State Supreme Courts are actively seeking ways to assist the law school machine by lowering the standard for bar admission. On his way out the door, Chief Judge Lippmann of the New York Court of Appeals did away with the decades old New York bar exam (one known to be one of the hardest to pass in the country). Instead, this summer, for the first time ever, law grads in NY will take a Multi State bar that is orders of magnitude easier than the old NY bar exam. This change occurred in line with the worst bar passage rates in NY for more than 30 years on back to back administrations of the current bar and a continual decline in pass rates for the last several years. This also happens to coincide with the largest grouping of low LSAT scorers being admitted to law schools, possibly ever. Are all of these things directly related? Maybe. Maybe not. But with States moving to lower the standards for admission to the bar and law schools eliminating all standards for entry into law schools, the concern should be for the public, particularly poor people, who will be seeking legal assistance from people that 10-years ago would never have gotten into law school in the first place or passed a real bar exam.

The ABA is in the best position as a national accrediting body to institute real standards to protect the integrity of the profession and well being of the public the profession serves. But it won't do that because its very existence and prosperity is linked to the success of the law school machine.

Right, that is why there needs to be an independent regulator.

At the end of the day people are and always will be self interested.

This is why I'm trying to tie it to ethics. They are in the best position to fix it and it does harm more than just law students, but the section of legal education is (1) technically independent from the ABA as required by the DOE, (2) subject to antitrust laws and thus restricted from engaging in anticompetitive practices (this laid the groundwork for the proliferation of law schools, including for-profit ones), and (3) flush with defensible "reasons" for imposing (and not imposing) standards that just happen to facilitate the law school scam despite members' conflict of interests. This is exactly the kind of shit professional codes of ethics exist to prevent/minimize -- especially in self-regulating professions like law.

ETA: The Section needs to have a (preferably enforceable) ethical obligation to look out for the interest of (in order of importance) the public, the profession, and future lawyers.

summon itt

summon

[asdfdfdfadfas]

By failing to adequately regulate law schools, the ABA hurts the general public.

With a growing group of law schools admitting classes comprised almost entirely of students that could not break a 150 on the LSAT, the ABA is permitting a new and growing generation of inferior lawyers to enter the market. If the bar were a real barrier, this would be less troubling, because the bar would be the gate keeper holding back the horde of dim would be attorneys. But many state bars / State Supreme Courts are actively seeking ways to assist the law school machine by lowering the standard for bar admission. On his way out the door, Chief Judge Lippmann of the New York Court of Appeals did away with the decades old New York bar exam (one known to be one of the hardest to pass in the country). Instead, this summer, for the first time ever, law grads in NY will take a Multi State bar that is orders of magnitude easier than the old NY bar exam. This change occurred in line with the worst bar passage rates in NY for more than 30 years on back to back administrations of the current bar and a continual decline in pass rates for the last several years. This also happens to coincide with the largest grouping of low LSAT scorers being admitted to law schools, possibly ever. Are all of these things directly related? Maybe. Maybe not. But with States moving to lower the standards for admission to the bar and law schools eliminating all standards for entry into law schools, the concern should be for the public, particularly poor people, who will be seeking legal assistance from people that 10-years ago would never have gotten into law school in the first place or passed a real bar exam.

The ABA is in the best position as a national accrediting body to institute real standards to protect the integrity of the profession and well being of the public the profession serves. But it won't do that because its very existence and prosperity is linked to the success of the law school machine.

Right, that is why there needs to be an independent regulator.

At the end of the day people are and always will be self interested.

This is why I'm trying to tie it to ethics. They are in the best position to fix it and it does harm more than just law students, but the section of legal education is (1) technically independent from the ABA as required by the DOE, (2) subject to antitrust laws and thus restricted from engaging in anticompetitive practices (this laid the groundwork for the proliferation of law schools, including for-profit ones), and (3) flush with defensible "reasons" for imposing (and not imposing) standards that just happen to facilitate the law school scam despite members' conflict of interests. This is exactly the kind of shit professional codes of ethics exist to prevent/minimize -- especially in self-regulating professions like law.

summon itt

summon

Ok. So what is your point? Are you going to file a law suit against the ABA for unethical behavior?

[Garden District]

Ok. So what is your point? Are you going to file a law suit against the ABA for unethical behavior?

No, trying to figure a different tack for correcting the problem. The ABA can't dictate standards to the Section, the DOE won't force the kind of changes needed without going back on their longstanding policy of not imposing value judgments in accreditation, and the Section won't do it on its own. But the ABA can impose actionable ethical standards of conduct and decisionmaking for attorneys (not sure about non-attorneys) acting in a non-legal, non-governmental, professional regulatory capacity. Foundational to that is a determination that the current failure to adequately regulate law schools is also an ethical failure in the professional sense. Does that make sense?

[Garden District]

Like, there's generally no way to really correct regulatory capture out in the real world. But this regulatory capture is happening in the context of professional self-regulation, and that gives us a few more tools to work with without breaking antitrust laws.