As a matter of FLSA compliance, the current rule seems to be the correct one to me. First, receiving academic credit is not a "safe harbor" that makes an FLSA claim untenable against a firm that hires an unpaid law student intern. The internship he seems to describe — basically, just doing legal work like you would as an associate — would not meet the FLSA criteria. Compare what happens at almost every law school internship to what is described in the DOL opinion letter. These things aren't even close, and the fact sheet only further emphasizes the educational value prong. Second, there is an argument that schools would be liable under the FLSA's broad "suffer or permit to work" language for these unpaid internships for issuing credit based on the control they exercise.
Of course, this guy isn't really concerned with the FLSA, he's concerned with the economic and pedagogical results for law students (and I don't disagree with him there). But he completely ignores the realities of the FLSA that could explain the opposition and chalks it up to a conspiracy instead. Maybe he is right.
this is a call-in:
lacrossebrother wrote: test