Why hasn't the ABA considered limiting the number of incoming law students? Forum

[lacrossebrother]

Id think law firms are more qualified to assess the capabilities of lawyers than the lsat but who knows

[stego]

I wonder if the ABA or LSAC could require applicants to have say a minimum 150 LSAT score to be eligible for law school.

[lacrossebrother]

I don't see how we are at all affected by the continued existence of shit tier schools. If anything, it preserves the prestige of the rest.

[reasonable_man]

Id think law firms are more qualified to assess the capabilities of lawyers than the lsat but who knows

I'm assuming you aren't a lawyer yet. Most good law firms can judge talent. Most shithouse mills want a warm body to generate revenue. They don't care how bad the lawyer is - as long as the lawyer will earn the firm some money. There is also no barrier (besides economic) to opening your own practice after you graduate. The scary part is that you can wander in, file an appeal and argue it on day one if you found some idiot that would let you....

Now even if good firms are capable of weeding out the idiots; regular average people (especially those that are busting their ass to scrape together money to get a divorce or fight for custody or trying to beat a bull shit criminal charge) are in no position to assess legal talent. And when the schools drop their standards into the gutter and the state bar sanctions it (and even helps by lowering their bar exam standards), the public is put at risk.

I joined this site in 2008 and back then I was considered an asshole because I warned that many of the top 100 law schools were not worth it. History has proven me right. 5 to 10 years from now, the problem of an infestation of poorly qualified lawyers preying on the public will be a real problem... Just watch and see.

[reasonable_man]

I wonder if the ABA or LSAC could require applicants to have say a minimum 150 LSAT score to be eligible for law school.

This would be a fine idea ... though I'd inch it up even a little higher. I like 154 because honestly, most reasonably intelligent people can study and reach that number.

[lacrossebrother]

Plus, if you guys didn't know, lawyers are still expensive as fuck, and insufficient access to legal advice is a real problem. If you want to suggest that a certain lsat score and below means you accept an obligation to commit to at least 200 pro bono hours or some shit for the first few years of your career, that might make sense.

[lacrossebrother]

Id think law firms are more qualified to assess the capabilities of lawyers than the lsat but who knows

I'm assuming you aren't a lawyer yet. Most good law firms can judge talent. Most shithouse mills want a warm body to generate revenue. They don't care how bad the lawyer is - as long as the lawyer will earn the firm some money. There is also no barrier (besides economic) to opening your own practice after you graduate. The scary part is that you can wander in, file an appeal and argue it on day one if you found some idiot that would let you....

Now even if good firms are capable of weeding out the idiots; regular average people (especially those that are busting their ass to scrape together money to get a divorce or fight for custody or trying to beat a bull shit criminal charge) are in no position to assess legal talent. And when the schools drop their standards into the gutter and the state bar sanctions it (and even helps by lowering their bar exam standards), the public is put at risk.

I joined this site in 2008 and back then I was considered an asshole because I warned that many of the top 100 law schools were not worth it. History has proven me right. 5 to 10 years from now, the problem of an infestation of poorly qualified lawyers preying on the public will be a real problem... Just watch and see.

I'm assuming you're not a lawyer yet, or are p-side.

[lacrossebrother]

Your post makes no sense, which is ironic given your position about LSAT and literacy. You are condescending, arrogant, and struggle with basic semicolon use.

[reasonable_man]

No. Actually, I've been gainfully employed in mid-law for 8 years. I have a strong book of business and am on the partnership track at my firm. I handle a variety of complex cases. I've second chaired several major trials and taken the lead on some minor. I've argued 5 appeals, one at the Circuit court and have dozens of reported decisions in my name. My hands are a good size. And I'm comfortably in the top 3% of all family income earners in the country. I live in a big house in an expensive town. Did I mention my hands were big?

How about you?

And by the way .... your idea to stick poor people with the dumbest kids graduating from law school was terrific. Really excellent. Great job with that. Maybe we can ship some doctors in from third world countries to give the poors better access to medicine too?

[lacrossebrother]

No. Actually, I've been gainfully employed in mid-law for 8 years. I have a strong book of business and am on the partnership track at my firm. I handle a variety of complex cases. I've second chaired several major trials and taken the lead on some minor. I've argued 5 appeals, one at the Circuit court and have dozens of reported decisions in my name. My hands are a good size. And I'm comfortably in the top 3% of all family income earners in the country. I live in a big house in an expensive town. Did I mention my hands were big?

How about you?

I'm really confused. How can you possibly adequately represent the interests of the public if you are so stupid, and don't know how semicolons work? Maybe it's because law isn't particularly difficult, but going to law school and understanding civil procedure is a tremendous advantage in court? If that's the case, then maybe "mills" that can provide low-cost representation to the low/middle class are still desirable?

[lacrossebrother]

And by the way .... your idea to stick poor people with the dumbest kids graduating from law school was terrific. Really excellent. Great job with that. Maybe we can ship some doctors in from third world countries to give the poors better access to medicine too?

I don't know if you're joking now. You think that impoverished kids in rural areas with limited to no access to healthcare would be worse off if attended to by doctors who trained in India?

[lacrossebrother]

But I do need to admit that I didn't realize I was talking to such a big shot.

[reasonable_man]

You're really hung up on the semicolon huh?

My friend. Its not quite as easy as you think. And sadly, there are already a lot of sub-par lawyers out there. Schools and states working together to lower the standards does not help anyone. These mills and poorly trained solos do much more harm than good. To be clear, there are plenty of good small firms and solo practitioners. But there are plenty that are awful and that number will only go up as intellectually limited attorneys flood the market. I'm not suggesting that we need to cap the number at 165 here. I'm saying that a person that cannot study for 6 months and get a 150 or better lacks the basic skills needed to review a file, figure out a strategy and argue a case. Why? Because breaking a 150 or so is just not that hard. Most people can do that on the very first LSAT they take. It's not asking to much of the ABA, law schools and state bars to hold the line and not lower the standards of the profession.

[smaug]

lol @ reasonable_man attacking someone as intelligent and prestigious as lacrossebrother

[reasonable_man]

But I do need to admit that I didn't realize I was talking to such a big shot.

Glad you figured it out.

[reasonable_man]

lol @ reasonable_man attacking someone as intelligent and prestigious as lacrossebrother

Thank goodness you showed up to correct me. Glad to see he has someone lined up to carry his bag.

[smaug]

i just want everyone itt to know how smart and prestigious all the other people itt are

it's important.

[reasonable_man]

i just want everyone itt to know how smart and prestigious all the other people itt are

it's important.

Well done.

[stego]

I don't see how we are at all affected by the continued existence of shit tier schools. If anything, it preserves the prestige of the rest.

Pls post this in the Vale of Tears and report back after you are unbanned ty

[lacrossebrother]

You're really hung up on the semicolon huh?

My friend. Its not quite as easy as you think. And sadly, there are already a lot of sub-par lawyers out there. Schools and states working together to lower the standards does not help anyone. These mills and poorly trained solos do much more harm than good. To be clear, there are plenty of good small firms and solo practitioners. But there are plenty that are awful and that number will only go up as intellectually limited attorneys flood the market. I'm not suggesting that we need to cap the number at 165 here. I'm saying that a person that cannot study for 6 months and get a 150 or better lacks the basic skills needed to review a file, figure out a strategy and argue a case. Why? Because breaking a 150 or so is just not that hard. Most people can do that on the very first LSAT they take. It's not asking to much of the ABA, law schools and state bars to hold the line and not lower the standards of the profession.

I'm hung up on (a) you starting a post with, "I'm guessing you're not a lawyer," which is about as condescending as it comes, and (b) the fact that you seem to have set an arbitrary threshold for what makes someone literate, even though I'm not all too (with two o's) convinced of your literacy. I just feel like you shouldn't throw rocks, brah.

The other thing is too that I do mgmt-side l&e defense lit. It's not uncommon to get a complaint filed by a plaintiff's lawyer in an individual plaintiff case where the lawyer forgets to fix all of the gender pronouns. These guys are usually the worst of the worst. But still, they're infinitely better than the pro se litigants who fucking handwrite their complaints that just don't stand a chance.

[lacrossebrother]

I don't see how we are at all affected by the continued existence of shit tier schools. If anything, it preserves the prestige of the rest.

Pls post this in the Vale of Tears and report back after you are unbanned ty

What? Who is this offensive or insensitive to?

[reasonable_man]

You're really hung up on the semicolon huh?

My friend. Its not quite as easy as you think. And sadly, there are already a lot of sub-par lawyers out there. Schools and states working together to lower the standards does not help anyone. These mills and poorly trained solos do much more harm than good. To be clear, there are plenty of good small firms and solo practitioners. But there are plenty that are awful and that number will only go up as intellectually limited attorneys flood the market. I'm not suggesting that we need to cap the number at 165 here. I'm saying that a person that cannot study for 6 months and get a 150 or better lacks the basic skills needed to review a file, figure out a strategy and argue a case. Why? Because breaking a 150 or so is just not that hard. Most people can do that on the very first LSAT they take. It's not asking to much of the ABA, law schools and state bars to hold the line and not lower the standards of the profession.

I'm hung up on (a) you starting a post with, "I'm guessing you're not a lawyer," which is about as condescending as it comes, and (b) the fact that you seem to have set an arbitrary threshold for what makes someone literate, even though I'm not all too (with two o's) convinced of your literacy. I just feel like you shouldn't throw rocks, brah.

The other thing is too that I do mgmt-side l&e defense lit. It's not uncommon to get a complaint filed by a plaintiff's lawyer in an individual plaintiff case where the lawyer forgets to fix all of the gender pronouns. These guys are usually the worst of the worst. But still, they're infinitely better than the pro se litigants who fucking handwrite their complaints that just don't stand a chance.

I'm willing to (with one o - I'm typing on an iPhone - give me a break) apologize for my somewhat douchie comment out of the gate. I also hope we don't work at the same firm - cause that would be awkward (we have a pretty strong management side L&E practice). That aside, I agree with you that the shit bag bottom of the barrel attorneys can sometimes sling one through and get some manner of justice for the little guy. But consider few things...

Most of those pro se complaints lack all merit. If they had any merit at all, some corner store lawyer would pick it up.

Now also consider this hypo for a moment... Think of the worst plaintiff attorney you've dealt with over the years. The worst. Now take into consideration that he certainly scored in the mid 150 range and passed the bar exam. Now imagine a guy that actually couldn't do either. Hand him a law license. Then think about the damage he can do. And I'm not just talking about in the context of L&E, where frankly, defense guys have the much harder job to do anyway. But think about all the other areas where a guy like that could do serious damage... Immigration petitions. Criminal defense. Child custody.

We don't need less qualified attorneys flooding the market. The bar is already pretty low.

So my apologies for coming on like a bit of a dick head - but I feel pretty strongly that law schools are really doing the wrong thing by allowing the standards to completely tank in the name of keeping up their revenue stream.

[lacrossebrother]

Ok I actually agree with all of that. I was just annoyed with the "I'm guessing you're not a lawyer" thing, since I've been a real lawyer for five months!! I'm glad you apologized. I actually like your posts normally too. Cheers, good night.

[Loquitur Res]

https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-docume ... -complaint

The ABA has gotten their balls busted in the past while trying to limit new law schools. Not saying money isn't a factor, but there are antitrust implications that shouldn't be ignored if people are looking for realistic solutions.

[reasonable_man]

Ok I actually agree with all of that. I was just annoyed with the "I'm guessing you're not a lawyer" thing, since I've been a real lawyer for five months!! I'm glad you apologized. I actually like your posts normally too. Cheers, good night.

Welcome to the club brah. Get yourself a dickhead tar like mine so no one makes the mistake again in the future regarding your Lawya status.

Nice work on landing a job in a solid and growing practice area... L&E is exploding. Its a great area to be in right now. DOL is on a rampage.

First year is hard as hell. If you want some unsolicited advice, spend the next 18 months really focusing and spending way too much time lawyering. I lived at the office for the first two years and that lead to a lot of good things and allowed me to kill the early learning curve.