Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism Forum

[stillwater]

He looked like a crook in that video

[Gorki]

I hate to say this, I really do, but there's actually a shortage in law school capacity, evidenced by students being declined; there is no real market failure, though, because new law schools are opening up to meet the demand.
I fucjing hate arguing that more law schools should open, and I wish many would close down, but that's the market you're talking about.

We are talking about a profession that has several portions of its code of professional responsibility still attuned to its feudalist origins though (no sharing in partnerships with non-lawyers, unauthorized practice of law, insane loyalty to the customer/'liege'). It is bizarrely protectionist in some ways that do not click with the business/finance professions. Making arguments based on the market alone undermines the fact the profession , especially for the older pre-boomer generation, simply doesn't work that way

[Anonymous User]

I wonder what the students at Case think of this doofus

He was very hands-on during the initial 1l year and enthusiastic about readjusting Case from the previous (not the interim) Dean's poor administration. I have mixed feelings regarding him, but those feelings are much more negative after watching the interview. I can say that he has increased the amount of scholarships substantially and reduced the 2015 class size by 1/3 in an attempt to recruit better students. He also has spent time abroad securing partnerships with Chinese law schools, although this likely only increases the law school cash flow without providing any real job opportunities for grads. I am utterly shocked at how oblivious he is to the financial crises of his students. The career development office has been seemingly pushing students towards PI, at least that's my impression. The job/internship postings are very lack luster, but I am somewhat optimistic for spring recruitment (that's how I sleep at night). Also, FWIW all of the faculty that I have talked to speak highly of him. I do think he needs to remove himself from his ivory tower and realize that Case =/= Columbia, and there is a legal employment problem for his students.

So why didn't he fuckin say that!!!!!!!

Ya know, from many conversations I have had with people who actually matter in all of this...and Prof. Campos, listen up or respond...I think Deans are probably more reasonable about this whole thing then they let on. They are political animals and need the support of their faculty. That could be the source of any disconnect between their rhetoric and reality.

But, ya. I judged Dean Mitchell's arguments harshly, and I still do. But if what you say above is true, I would judge his actions differently.

I don't have any hard statistics about the scholarships, but it seems pretty credited based statements by the school and talking to my peers. The class size for 2015 is 160ish compared to 240ish of the previous year. Also, the median LSAT for the 2015 class is 2 points higher than the previous year, not sure if median GPA increased or not though.

[androstan]

I hate to say this, I really do, but there's actually a shortage in law school capacity, evidenced by students being declined; there is no real market failure, though, because new law schools are opening up to meet the demand.
I fucjing hate arguing that more law schools should open, and I wish many would close down, but that's the market you're talking about.

We are talking about a profession that has several portions of its code of professional responsibility still attuned to its feudalist origins though (no sharing in partnerships with non-lawyers, unauthorized practice of law, insane loyalty to the customer/'liege'). It is bizarrely protectionist in some ways that do not click with the business/finance professions. Making arguments based on the market alone undermines the fact the profession , especially for the older pre-boomer generation, simply doesn't work that way

Ding's point, while valid as far as it goes, doesn't go very far toward describing anything we actually care about. It is true that there are more people willing to fill out and submit law school applications than there are seats available. It is unclear whether 100% of those applying, if admitted, would attend. In fact, it is very likely not true, as evidenced by anecdotal reports on these boards and LSN of individuals who are accepted but choose not to attend.

The issue we do (or should) care about is the relationship between law school capacity and demand for legal services. From a free market standpoint there is clearly too little demand for too many graduates. From a social standpoint there may not be enough graduates to provide basic services to those who can't afford them, which should be ameliorated if we consider such service a basic social good.

[spleenworship]

I hate to say this, I really do, but there's actually a shortage in law school capacity, evidenced by students being declined; there is no real market failure, though, because new law schools are opening up to meet the demand.
I fucjing hate arguing that more law schools should open, and I wish many would close down, but that's the market you're talking about.

We are talking about a profession that has several portions of its code of professional responsibility still attuned to its feudalist origins though (no sharing in partnerships with non-lawyers, unauthorized practice of law, insane loyalty to the customer/'liege'). It is bizarrely protectionist in some ways that do not click with the business/finance professions. Making arguments based on the market alone undermines the fact the profession , especially for the older pre-boomer generation, simply doesn't work that way

Ding's point, while valid as far as it goes, doesn't go very far toward describing anything we actually care about. It is true that there are more people willing to fill out and submit law school applications than there are seats available. It is unclear whether 100% of those applying, if admitted, would attend. In fact, it is very likely not true, as evidenced by anecdotal reports on these boards and LSN of individuals who are accepted but choose not to attend.

The issue we do (or should) care about is the relationship between law school capacity and demand for legal services. From a free market standpoint there is clearly too little demand for too many graduates. From a social standpoint there may not be enough graduates to provide basic services to those who can't afford them, which should be ameliorated if we consider such service a basic social good.

If they dropped the tax bomb after 25 years, serving the middle class and poorz losing only 15% of my discretionary income would be doable.

[androstan]

I hate to say this, I really do, but there's actually a shortage in law school capacity, evidenced by students being declined; there is no real market failure, though, because new law schools are opening up to meet the demand.
I fucjing hate arguing that more law schools should open, and I wish many would close down, but that's the market you're talking about.

We are talking about a profession that has several portions of its code of professional responsibility still attuned to its feudalist origins though (no sharing in partnerships with non-lawyers, unauthorized practice of law, insane loyalty to the customer/'liege'). It is bizarrely protectionist in some ways that do not click with the business/finance professions. Making arguments based on the market alone undermines the fact the profession , especially for the older pre-boomer generation, simply doesn't work that way

Ding's point, while valid as far as it goes, doesn't go very far toward describing anything we actually care about. It is true that there are more people willing to fill out and submit law school applications than there are seats available. It is unclear whether 100% of those applying, if admitted, would attend. In fact, it is very likely not true, as evidenced by anecdotal reports on these boards and LSN of individuals who are accepted but choose not to attend.

The issue we do (or should) care about is the relationship between law school capacity and demand for legal services. From a free market standpoint there is clearly too little demand for too many graduates. From a social standpoint there may not be enough graduates to provide basic services to those who can't afford them, which should be ameliorated if we consider such service a basic social good.

If they dropped the tax bomb after 25 years, serving the middle class and poorz losing only 15% of my discretionary income would be doable.

Even with the tax bomb, I think a lot of students staring down their debt would gladly "serve the poorz" if it could make them a decent living. The problem is that poorz, and to a large extent (though not quite as much) the middle class, cannot afford to pay a lawyer enough. There is a demand for a good/service, but those who demand it do not have sufficient resources to obtain it. This kind of situation happens all the time in other contexts, i.e. the poor cannot afford even the most inexpensive housing, but have an extremely high demand/need for it. A common method of addressing the issue is to progressively tax sale of the demanded good/service and distribute the revenue to those below a certain income in the form of vouchers for i.e. housing, food, and other things the society establishes as "necessary."

[Gorki]

The "just serve poors or middle class" is a flame since almost everyone in these categories has any legal dispute they are involved in carried out by an Insurance company or they default. People are insanely cheap, and more often than not the type of legal issues they have are either strict liability or can be reasonably done through insurance companies and/or some other professional.

Where I work we have people who will try to litigate a 15-35k claim pro se (not through a court but think more administrative proceedings), and will do it because they think they got it under control. They lose so fucking much, and are given the statistics as to win-lose for pro se but still refuse to consult any lawyer at all. This will not change IMO.


Almost all of the rank-and-file processes (beyond divorce, family law, and crim) that lawyers do is now done by the party themselves using easily obtainable (sometimes Court generated) forms they file. Sometimes I think working in IT is a better gateway to the legal field than a JD.

[spleenworship]

The "just serve poors or middle class" is a flame since almost everyone in these categories has any legal dispute they are involved in carried out by an Insurance company or they default. People are insanely cheap, and more often than not the type of legal issues they have are either strict liability or can be reasonably done through insurance companies and/or some other professional.

Where I work we have people who will try to litigate a 15-35k claim pro se (not through a court but think more administrative proceedings), and will do it because they think they got it under control. They lose so fucking much, and are given the statistics as to win-lose for pro se but still refuse to consult any lawyer at all. This will not change IMO.


Almost all of the rank-and-file processes (beyond divorce, family law, and crim) that lawyers do is now done by the party themselves using easily obtainable (sometimes Court generated) forms they file. Sometimes I think working in IT is a better gateway to the legal field than a JD.

I disagree with this. As someone who clerks for a plaintiffs' firm I have seen how the insurance companies screw people. And as a former blue collar dude I can say that most people don't want to go pro se... The number one reason I hear from people that they don't want an attorney is, by a huge margin, "I can't pay $300/hr". If I could charge $100 hour and make a living I'd never be short of clients.

[Gorki]

I disagree with this. As someone who clerks for a plaintiffs' firm I have seen how the insurance companies screw people. And as a former blue collar dude I can say that most people don't want to go pro se... The number one reason I hear from people that they don't want an attorney is, by a huge margin, "I can't pay $300/hr". If I could charge $100 hour and make a living I'd never be short of clients.

I think to get a steady flow of business though for anything outside of bread 'n butter PI, Fam Law, Crim, you would NEED to charge substantially less than 100 an hour. Probably have to charge flat rates. I know a TTTT grad though who is starting to make some good enough money doing family law stuff... But it is very emotionally messy. The thing is people may just sigh off a small claims court issue or walk away from an fishy real estate deal they want, and never consult a lawyer. Only if its their livelihood (PI), freedom (Crim), or family (Fam Law) at stake are 90% of the population open to using a lawyer. If you dig that stuff its def a decent way to go, but the idea that you can just do real estate law for poors/middle class is a bit of a stretch.

[manofjustice]

The "just serve poors or middle class" is a flame since almost everyone in these categories has any legal dispute they are involved in carried out by an Insurance company or they default. People are insanely cheap, and more often than not the type of legal issues they have are either strict liability or can be reasonably done through insurance companies and/or some other professional.

Where I work we have people who will try to litigate a 15-35k claim pro se (not through a court but think more administrative proceedings), and will do it because they think they got it under control. They lose so fucking much, and are given the statistics as to win-lose for pro se but still refuse to consult any lawyer at all. This will not change IMO.


Almost all of the rank-and-file processes (beyond divorce, family law, and crim) that lawyers do is now done by the party themselves using easily obtainable (sometimes Court generated) forms they file. Sometimes I think working in IT is a better gateway to the legal field than a JD.

I disagree with this. As someone who clerks for a plaintiffs' firm I have seen how the insurance companies screw people. And as a former blue collar dude I can say that most people don't want to go pro se... The number one reason I hear from people that they don't want an attorney is, by a huge margin, "I can't pay $300/hr". If I could charge $100 hour and make a living I'd never be short of clients.

I thought "sue the insurance company" people are contingency-fee?

[spleenworship]

The "just serve poors or middle class" is a flame since almost everyone in these categories has any legal dispute they are involved in carried out by an Insurance company or they default. People are insanely cheap, and more often than not the type of legal issues they have are either strict liability or can be reasonably done through insurance companies and/or some other professional.

Where I work we have people who will try to litigate a 15-35k claim pro se (not through a court but think more administrative proceedings), and will do it because they think they got it under control. They lose so fucking much, and are given the statistics as to win-lose for pro se but still refuse to consult any lawyer at all. This will not change IMO.


Almost all of the rank-and-file processes (beyond divorce, family law, and crim) that lawyers do is now done by the party themselves using easily obtainable (sometimes Court generated) forms they file. Sometimes I think working in IT is a better gateway to the legal field than a JD.

I disagree with this. As someone who clerks for a plaintiffs' firm I have seen how the insurance companies screw people. And as a former blue collar dude I can say that most people don't want to go pro se... The number one reason I hear from people that they don't want an attorney is, by a huge margin, "I can't pay $300/hr". If I could charge $100 hour and make a living I'd never be short of clients.

I thought "sue the insurance company" people are contingency-fee?

They are, but I thought he was suggesting that people should let the insurance company handle it, which I think is a bad idea.

[manofjustice]

Oh, I gottcha.

I don't understand why Dean Mitchell doesn't think people are serving the "under-served." Why would they not do that? They don't have any other job?

[dingbat]

even more infuriating
Also, proof that what's good for a law school isn't necessarily what's good for its students

But New England Law’s escal­ating tuition has been a boon to its bottom line. The school — a tax-exempt, charitable organization, like most other colleges and universities in the region — reported that revenues exceeded expenses by $10 million in the 2011 fiscal year, which would represent a profit of roughly 30 percent if it were a for-profit company

[spleenworship]

even more infuriating
Also, proof that what's good for a law school isn't necessarily what's good for its students

But New England Law’s escal­ating tuition has been a boon to its bottom line. The school — a tax-exempt, charitable organization, like most other colleges and universities in the region — reported that revenues exceeded expenses by $10 million in the 2011 fiscal year, which would represent a profit of roughly 30 percent if it were a for-profit company

IR8AF

[timbs4339]

Well fuck me, but at least it went to a good cause:

"O’Brien confirmed in an inter­view that the loan was crucial to his finances, giving him the cash to pay obligations to his former wife and to pay for his primary residence. He also confirmed that he used part of the loan to cover the $475,000 price of his Delray Beach condo, an 1,870-square-foot unit in a beach front ­development in Florida."

And of course, our eminent Chief Justice needs a break from his duties:

"Last summer, for example, Chief Justice Roberts taught a law school class on the island of Malta in the Mediterranean Sea that was sponsored by New England Law and three other law schools, resulting in a photograph of Roberts and O’Brien gracing the cover of New England Law’s most ­recent alumni magazine."

[suralin]

Well fuck me, but at least it went to a good cause:

"O’Brien confirmed in an inter­view that the loan was crucial to his finances, giving him the cash to pay obligations to his former wife and to pay for his primary residence. He also confirmed that he used part of the loan to cover the $475,000 price of his Delray Beach condo, an 1,870-square-foot unit in a beach front ­development in Florida."

And of course, our eminent Chief Justice needs a break from his duties:

"Last summer, for example, Chief Justice Roberts taught a law school class on the island of Malta in the Mediterranean Sea that was sponsored by New England Law and three other law schools, resulting in a photograph of Roberts and O’Brien gracing the cover of New England Law’s most ­recent alumni magazine."

[spleenworship]

Well fuck me, but at least it went to a good cause:

"O’Brien confirmed in an inter­view that the loan was crucial to his finances, giving him the cash to pay obligations to his former wife and to pay for his primary residence. He also confirmed that he used part of the loan to cover the $475,000 price of his Delray Beach condo, an 1,870-square-foot unit in a beach front ­development in Florida."

And of course, our eminent Chief Justice needs a break from his duties:

"Last summer, for example, Chief Justice Roberts taught a law school class on the island of Malta in the Mediterranean Sea that was sponsored by New England Law and three other law schools, resulting in a photograph of Roberts and O’Brien gracing the cover of New England Law’s most ­recent alumni magazine."

[lovelaw27]

[quote="dingbat"]
I hate to say this, I really do, but there's actually a shortage in law school capacity, evidenced by students being declined; quote]

This is incorrect. ABA approved law schools are in the business of admitting people that want to go to law school AND have a reasonable chance passing the bar. The people that can't be granted admission to any ABA approved law school don't have a reasonable chance of passing the bar.

[dingbat]

I hate to say this, I really do, but there's actually a shortage in law school capacity, evidenced by students being declined; quote]

This is incorrect. ABA approved law schools are in the business of admitting people that want to go to law school AND have a reasonable chance passing the bar. The people that can't be granted admission to any ABA approved law school don't have a reasonable chance of passing the bar.

Nope. They're in the business of providing a legal education (JD). Being ABA approved is a requirement in most states, and maintaining accreditation is a requirement to stay in business. Maintaining a minimum threshold bar passage rate is a requirement of doing business, not a goal thereof, just like how a restaurant is not in the business of maintaining a sanitary kitchen, but it is a requirement to stay in business

[stillwater]

I hate to say this, I really do, but there's actually a shortage in law school capacity, evidenced by students being declined; quote]

This is incorrect. ABA approved law schools are in the business of admitting people that want to go to law school AND have a reasonable chance passing the bar. The people that can't be granted admission to any ABA approved law school don't have a reasonable chance of passing the bar.

Nope. They're in the business of providing a legal education (JD). Being ABA approved is a requirement in most states, and maintaining accreditation is a requirement to stay in business. Maintaining a minimum threshold bar passage rate is a requirement of doing business, not a goal thereof, just like how a restaurant is not in the business of maintaining a sanitary kitchen, but it is a requirement to stay in business

i like a dirty kitchen

[androstan]

I hate to say this, I really do, but there's actually a shortage in law school capacity, evidenced by students being declined; quote]

This is incorrect. ABA approved law schools are in the business of admitting people that want to go to law school AND have a reasonable chance passing the bar. The people that can't be granted admission to any ABA approved law school don't have a reasonable chance of passing the bar.

Nope. They're in the business of providing a legal education (JD). Being ABA approved is a requirement in most states, and maintaining accreditation is a requirement to stay in business. Maintaining a minimum threshold bar passage rate is a requirement of doing business, not a goal thereof, just like how a restaurant is not in the business of maintaining a sanitary kitchen, but it is a requirement to stay in business

His poor retort doesn't make your irrelevant point more relevant.

[dixiecupdrinking]

I hate to say this, I really do, but there's actually a shortage in law school capacity, evidenced by students being declined; quote]

This is incorrect. ABA approved law schools are in the business of admitting people that want to go to law school AND have a reasonable chance passing the bar. The people that can't be granted admission to any ABA approved law school don't have a reasonable chance of passing the bar.

Nope. They're in the business of providing a legal education (JD). Being ABA approved is a requirement in most states, and maintaining accreditation is a requirement to stay in business. Maintaining a minimum threshold bar passage rate is a requirement of doing business, not a goal thereof, just like how a restaurant is not in the business of maintaining a sanitary kitchen, but it is a requirement to stay in business

His poor retort doesn't make your irrelevant point more relevant.

But... capacity...!

[manofjustice]

Louis CK: http://youtu.be/J0rSXjVuJVg?t=1m36s @ 1:36

Louis CK FTW.

[lovelaw27]

I hate to say this, I really do, but there's actually a shortage in law school capacity, evidenced by students being declined; quote]

This is incorrect. ABA approved law schools are in the business of admitting people that want to go to law school AND have a reasonable chance passing the bar. The people that can't be granted admission to any ABA approved law school don't have a reasonable chance of passing the bar.

Nope. They're in the business of providing a legal education (JD). Maintaining a minimum threshold bar passage rate is a requirement of doing business, not a goal thereof

So what your saying is staying in business is not a goal for ABA approved law schools?

[dingbat]

I hate to say this, I really do, but there's actually a shortage in law school capacity, evidenced by students being declined; quote]

This is incorrect. ABA approved law schools are in the business of admitting people that want to go to law school AND have a reasonable chance passing the bar. The people that can't be granted admission to any ABA approved law school don't have a reasonable chance of passing the bar.

Nope. They're in the business of providing a legal education (JD). Maintaining a minimum threshold bar passage rate is a requirement of doing business, not a goal thereof

So what your saying is staying in business is not a goal for ABA approved law schools?

what I'm saying is that the business of a law school is selling a legal education to students. In order to do so, it needs to meet certain requirements (basically, be ABA approved, which requires a certain amount of students passing the bar (not to mention, if passage rates drop too low, students might stop enrolling).

Yes, staying in business is a goal for every business, but no business is in the business of staying in business. But now we're just getting into an argument about semantics.
Put simply, law schools make money by having students attend; whether their students get jobs or not doesn't affect them (gonna ignore alumni donations for brevity's sake)