Andrew Perlman on "Misleading Law School Promotional Materials"

[Guest blogger Andew Perlman, of Suffolk, discusses law school promotional materials.]

As you know, Model Rule 7.1 prohibits lawyers from advertising in a way that could be misleading to potential clients.  What has troubled me is that so many law schools distribute promotional materials that would probably violate Rule 7.1, if that rule applied in the context of legal education.

Consider some examples.  One law school’s promotional literature cites a report showing that its graduates claim to have among the best job prospects in the country, when in fact the law school’s own employment data doesn’t support the claim.  Many law schools frequently talk about the quality of their clinical programs, not mentioning that their clinical programs are typically not big enough to accommodate all students who express an interest.  Schools also brag about how their graduates take all sorts of interesting public sector jobs, when the reality is that many graduates won’t be able to afford those jobs given the crushing debt that they will have.  The list goes on and on.

Currently, none of these claims are considered to be unethical or impermissible, although many of them would probably violate 7.1 if it applied.  So I wonder why law schools are treated differently than lawyers for purposes of advertising.  Indeed, many of the same rationales for lawyer advertising restrictions would also apply to law school promotional literature.  First, just like someone who hires a lawyer, the prospective law student has a lot at stake.  The student is about to invest three or more years and more than $100,000 (at many schools) to attend.  Shouldn’t the promotional material avoid being misleading in any way? 

Second, some information is hard to verify, just as it is for lawyers.  Claims about job opportunities and clinical programs can be researched, but there is a lot of information that is typically hard to uncover for the average applicant without a good deal of homework.

Aside from any analogies to lawyer advertising, shouldn’t law schools simply be setting an example for lawyers about truthfulness in advertising?  If we are trying to teach our students about ethics, aren’t we starting that instruction rather awkwardly if we engage in conduct that would be considered unethical if our graduates engaged in it?  And in an era of concerns about the role of misleading lawyer conduct in various recent scandals, shouldn’t we be particularly sensitive to being misleading in our own promotional materials?

Law schools and law professors typically don’t have an incentive to take the lead on these issues.  Indeed, no school wants to be the first one to eliminate spin from their promotional literature.  Doing so would put that school at a competitive disadvantage, especially given the importance of admission data in various law school rankings.  The solution (if there is to be one) would likely have to be in the form of an ABA or AALS regulation that more closely resembles 7.1 than is currently the case in regulations such as ABA Standard 509.

To be honest, I’m not a big fan of the restrictions on lawyer advertising for a number of reasons.  (I set out some of my thoughts in this article.)  But if we have them, there’s certainly a bit of hypocrisy if we (as legal educators) fail to follow them ourselves.  Any thoughts?

Comments

[S.cotus]

I have confronted a few people on this, and they told me, essentially that because law schools are training people not to be naive, there is no reason to punish the naive beforehand -- sort of "tough love." For this reason, professors at 4th-tier schools will encourage "good" students to transfer out, and admit that most of their literature is inaccurate.

I would like to see up front honest with all schools about grades. Schools should be forced to tell applying students what the curves are, so that students can decide whether to risk going to a "lesser" school in which the faculty think that 1/2 the students are worse than a "C" or a better one where they tell the students that they are all smart, and give them all B+s or As. Essentially, students should be told if they have to work hard to be respected by other lawyers. At my school, just about anyone could get a federal clerkship because the school had some indefinable luster about it.

It is worth noting that SNESL has been sued (with some initial success) in this area in the recent past. See Rodi v. SNESL, http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/03-2502-01A.pdf

[David Hricik]

Interesting stuff, Andy. At first, I thought that a private right of action for misrepresentation, or deceptive trade practices, would suffice, but that sure puts the student in a rock and a hard place. What would be a good enforcement mechanism if there were an ABA Standard, though?

I like better mandated disclosures -- requiring posting of the last X year's hiring stats, annual salaries, curve, and so on. That lets a school "puff" and avoids awkward enforcement and line-drawing, but gets the information out.

The Revolution Starts Now!

[David Giacalone]

Andy, Count me against the use of misleading spin by law schools (and by lawyers). However, if the best examples are the ones you just listed above, I'm not impressed that the problem is all that big or that many people are misled.

[1] You start with "One law school’s promotional literature cites a report showing that its graduates claim to have among the best job prospects in the country, when in fact the law school’s own employment data doesn’t support the claim." This is your best example. Still, unless you tell me more about what the "employment data" (which I presume are readily available) show, I'm not so sure that the Report about the claims of graduates is either wrong or misleading.

[2] You say "Many law schools frequently talk about the quality of their clinical programs, not mentioning that their clinical programs are typically not big enough to accommodate all students who express an interest." What applicant -- having been through college and read the tips on what to look for in a law school -- doesn't know enough to ask about the size, eligibility, and availability of such programs? (Whould you want such a credulous applicant to be your lawyer someday?)

[3] You say: "Schools also brag about how their graduates take all sorts of interesting public sector jobs, when the reality is that many graduates won’t be able to afford those jobs given the crushing debt that they will have." What law school applicant is not aware of the debt? Which applicant interested in public service isn't looking for schools with low-income-protection plans? (see my blurb yesterday on the Harvard Law LIPP - http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2005/04/12#a3656). Unless the school is lying about graduates taking such jobs, what's your beef? What more or less would you prefer the law school say? Possible Disclaimers: "Your Results May Vary!" or "Don't Try This at Home!" or "Yes, the World is Unfair."

You end with the rhetorical trick of many a complainer: "The list goes on and on." If your first three are your best shot, we can all turn to far more pressing ethical issues. If there really is a big problem, someone should start a Law School Spin weblog or web bulletin board, with a simple, free search engine.

P.S. The FTC's Policy Statement on Deception - http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-decept.htm - suggests that the Commission, at least, won't go after pure puffery, and will look to see if the target audience is likely to be misled and to act to their detriment.

[Andrew Perlman]

David,

Let me respond to your analysis of the examples that I used. As for the job employment data, I preferred not to reveal the name of the school or the specific data. I'm happy to do so privately if you like. You'll have to take my word that the school promotes itself as having among the very best job prospects in the country, although data supplied by U.S. News & World Report is clearly to the contrary. That sounds pretty egregious to me.

As for students asking about clinical programs, I agree with you completely that prospective law students should do so before accepting an offer of admission. But the reality is that many students don't ask and simply make assumptions. You may think that they're naive for not asking, but it's a common misunderstanding. I have spoken with students and graduates of many law schools who were surprised by their inability to get a clinical opportunity and felt misled as a result.

As for the third example, you ask about students' awareness of debt. I think law students may not fully appreciate the effect that debt has on career options. Again, chalk it up to naivety, but it's a misimpression that I believe -- based on my six years of teaching experience at more than one law school and my own experiences as a law student -- many students have.

As for other examples, I know of one school that is not in the top 50 that promotes itself as one of America's most respected law schools. In many other circumstances, law schools don't tell students (as mentioned in an earlier response to my item) about the percentage of students who flunk out each year. Many law schools (not Harvard, of course) deliberately plan to expel a certain percentage of students each year. I'd love for you to find a law school that admits this in their promotional materials. So, yes, the list does go on and on, and it wasn't merely a "rhetorical trick."

As for what schools should say, I do think that law schools should be more forthcoming with disclaimers about these issues. If it's true (as has been my experience) that students are misunderstanding their job prospects or their opportunities while in law school because of some of the items appearing in law school promotional materials, I just can't agree with you that disclaimers would be silly.

Your cite to the FTC's standard is beside the point. My observation was that lawyers are held to a much higher standard than what the FTC has required of other businesses. My question is: why should law schools be allowed to engage in practices that would be considered unethical if lawyers engaged in them? I don't think your response really answers that question.

[David Giacalone]

Andy, Rather than tit-for-tatting, I did some online research and found the following relevant materials.

Standard for ABA-approved law schools
Chapt. 5 Admissions.

Standard 509. BASIC CONSUMER INFORMATION.

A law school shall publish basic consumer information. The information shall be published in a fair and accurate manner reflective of actual practice.

Interpretation 509-1:
The following categories of consumer information are considered basic:

(1) admission data;

(2) tuition, fees, living costs, financial aid, and refunds;

(3) enrollment data and graduation rates;

(4) composition and number of faculty and administrators;

(5) curricular offerings;

(6) library resources;

(7) physical facilities; and

(8) placement rates and bar passage data. (August 1996)

Interpretation 509-2:
To comply with its obligation to publish basic consumer information under the first sentence of this Standard, a law school may either provide the information to a publication designated by the Council or publish the information in its own publication. If the school chooses to meet this obligation through its own publication, the basic consumer information shall be published in a manner comparable to that used in the Council-designated publication, and the school shall provide the publication to all of its applicants. (August 1996)

Interpretation 509-3:
Standard 509 requires a law school fairly and accurately to report basic consumer information whenever and wherever that information is reported or published. A law school's participation in the Council-designated publication referred to in Interpretation 509-2 and its provision of fair and accurate information for that book does not excuse a school from the obligation to report fairly and accurately all basic consumer information published in other places or for other purposes. (August 2003)

Interpretation 509-4:
All law schools shall have and make publicly available a student tuition and fee refund policy. This policy shall contain a complete statement of all student tuition and fees and a schedule for the refund of student tuition and fees. (August 1997)

Interpretation 509-5:
If a law school elects to make a public disclosure of its status as a law school approved by the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar of the American Bar Association, it shall so accurately and shall include the name, address and telephone number of the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar of the American Bar Association. (February 1998; August 1998)

Find it at http://www.abanet.org/legaled/standards/chapter5.html

In addition, it appears to be very easy to find information about law schools from the ABA and from the Law School Admissions Council. For example:

LSAC Official Guide to ABA-approved law schools http://officialguide.lsac.org/search/cgi-bin/results.asp

ABA Law School stats - http://www.abanet.org/legaled/statistics/stats.html

The LSAC Guide for each school has lots of data on topics mentioned here today, including attritition rates, annual expenses and median size of financial aid, employment and bar passage rates, and even the number of clinical classes and available seats. For example, see University of Akron School of Law - http://officialguide.lsac.org/OFFGUIDE/pdf/aba1829.pdf .

I originally mentioned the The FTC definition, Andy, because the test of deception is whether the target audience acting reasonably would be deceived. (I have seen no evidence that lawyers are "held to" a stronger standard than that.)

On large issues like the existence of debt and its impact on job choices, I will not posit that the reasonable law school applicant should be able to plead naivety or ignorance -- as opposed to wreckless obliviousness and hyperwhineyness. Same thing for the availability of clinical courses, post-graduation employment rates, and a school's attrition rate.

From my perspective (and for the sake of their future clients), no law school applicant has a viable excuse for not finding such information and using it to evaluate a school's promotional activities. (Of course, "one of the most respected" is just puffery and not even worth fretting over.)

According to the Site Visit page of the ABA Legal Education Committee, Complaints/Comments about a school's compliance with the applicable Standards should be sent to the Deputy Consultant on Legal Education to the American Bar Association, 321 N. Clark Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60610. http://www.abanet.org/legaled/accreditation/sitevisit/acvisits.html

For readers' edification, the following paper was presented at the Jan. 2005 AALS Convention -- "Strategic Identity and the Branding of Law Schools," Jon M. Garon, Hamline University School of Law -- http://www.aals.org/am2005/thurspapers/300Garon.pdf -- presented by the Section on Pre-Legal Education and Admission to Law School, Co-Sponsored by Section on Institutional Advancement, in a session called: Selling your Law School in a Buyer’s Market: Moving Beyond Location, Location, and the U.S. News and World Report's Evaluation.

[Andrew Perlman]

David,

Thanks for the follow up. I agree that Standard 509 is the relevant governing regulation for law schools, but it doesn't go nearly as far as the Rule that lawyers have to follow: Model Rule 7.1.

When you asked for evidence about lawyers being held to a higher standard than other types of businesses, 7.1 is what I had in mind. The interpretation of this rule in many jurisdictions has been incredibly broad and much broader (I believe) than any FTC standard. Indeed, what you describe as mere puffery would likely be considered an ethical violation under Rule 7.1.

My observation is that, if law schools (through Standard 509) were held to the same standard as lawyers (through 7.1), many of the promotional materials at law schools would be considered to be unethical.

Now perhaps the aggressive 7.1 standard shouldn't apply to law schools because law students should be more sophisticated about researching law schools or because law school data is more available than data on lawyers. I'm not entirely convinced by this reasoning for the reasons that I described in my original post.

It's also possible that 7.1 itself is too broad. I am much more sympathetic to that argument. But as long as we insist on holding lawyers to the high standard of 7.1, I think (for the reasons that I mentioned in my opening post) that law schools should also conform to that standard.

One other point of interest. As you note, prospective students can get attrition rates if they research them. I don't know if those rates, though, differentiate between students who drop out volutarily and those who get flunked out. If it doesn't, students can easily misunderstand their likelihood of graduating from a particular law school.

[David Giacalone]

Andy, You seem to be describing older versions of ABA Model Rule 7.1. Now (mostly due to fear of antitrust liability) it is really no broader than the FTC definition of deception. Unlike versions that still exist in some states that ban puffery and comparisons and vague claims of quality, Rule 7.1 merely says: "A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading."

I'm not at all sure that having to present consumer information in a "fair and accurate manner reflective of actual practice" is less restrictive than Rule 7.1. I do not believe that claiming to be "one of the most respected" would come under Rule 7.1. And, as you suggest, I'm pretty sure that law students have far better resources available to them than clients for making intelligent choices in the respective marketplace.

I just checked the ABA and LSAC data on attrition, and the numbers are given for both "Academic" and "Other." [Your whiney students are running out of excuses.] The following Standard on Admissions should also be useful as a guide for the law schools, and for anyone wanting to complain about non-compliance:

Standard 501. ADMISSIONS.
(a) A law school’s admission policies shall be consistent with the objectives of its educational program and the resources available for implementing those objectives.

(b) A law school shall not admit applicants who do not appear capable of satisfactorily completing its educational program and being admitted to the bar.

Interpretation 501-1:
A law school may not permit financial considerations detrimentally to affect its admission and retention policies and their administration. A law school may face a conflict of interest whenever the exercise of sound judgment in the application of admission policies or academic standards and retention policies might reduce enrollment below the level necessary to support the program. (August 1996)

Interpretation 501-2:
A law school’s admission policies shall be consistent with Standards 201, 211 and 301. (August 1996; July 2000)

[Andrew Perlman]

David,

I guess we just disagree about how bar associations have interpreted the current version of 7.1. In my view, bar associations take a very aggressive stand on the meaning of the word "misleading." For example, check out this opinion by the Virginia Bar, which found a law firm's claim about being among "the best" in a particular practice area to be "misleading": http://www.vsb.org/committees/standing/advertising/lao0114_022203.html (This is not necessarily the best example, but it's one that came immediately to mind.)

My sense is that the advertising described in the above opinion would not be problematic at all under FTC regulations, but it is a problem under at least one jurisdiction's interpretation of 7.1. I don't think the opinion is unusual in terms of how aggressively it restricts lawyer advertising.

In the end, when bar associations go after lawyers for saying how good they are, the bars are simply protecting the public. But if law students complain about their law school's promotional materials, which also tout how good they are, the law students are whiney.

Getting back to my original point, I'm just not convinced that law schools should be held to a different (and lower) standard in the area of advertising than the lawyers they are producing.

[David Giacalone]

I think we agree on one thing, Andy: Current lawyer advertising rules are too restrictive. I have been writing on the subject since my law school ethics paper in 1975 (which earned me my lowest law school grade, because I argued for removing advertising restrictions). At my weblog see "Indiana High Court Huffs and Puffs Over P/I Ads" -- at http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2003/08/13#a182 and "pit-bully pulpit" -- at http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2005/02/05#a3208 .

However, I continue to believe that you are talking about PRIOR versions of Model Rule 7.1, which in its entirety NOW says "A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading."

The Ethics 2000 revisions to the Model Rules removed the following sections from the prior version of Rule 7.1:

http://www.abanet.org/cpr/e2k-rule71.html

(b) is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve, or states or implies that the lawyer can achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; or

(c) compares the lawyer's services with other lawyers' services, unless the comparison can be factually substantiated.

Here's part of the Ethics 2000 Reporter's Explanation:

http://www.abanet.org/cpr/e2k-rule71rem.html

"New Comment [3] addresses the problem areas covered in current paragraphs (b) and (c), explaining circumstances under which statements raising unjustified expectations and making unsubstantiated comparisons may be false or misleading. The first sentence is a modification of the deleted portion of current Comment [1]. Rather than stating that truthful reports of a lawyer's achievements are ordinarily prohibited as misleading, the Comment is limited to a warning that such statements may be misleading. The second sentence indicates that comparisons that cannot be factually substantiated will be misleading only if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable person would conclude that the comparison could be factually substantiated. Neither statement is as sweeping as its counterpart in the current Comment or paragraph (c). Because many jurisdictions encourage or require the use of disclaimers in lawyer advertising, the final sentence indicates that disclaimers may reduce the likelihood that a statement about the lawyer or the lawyer's services will be misleading."

On the other hand, this is the version of Rule 7.1 applied in the Virginia ethical opinion you have cited:

http://www.vsb.org/profguides/rules.pdf
RULE 7.1 Communications Concerning A Lawyer’s Services

(a) A lawyer shall not, on behalf of the lawyer or any other lawyer affiliated with the lawyer or the firm, use or

participate in the use of any form of public communication if such communication contains a false, fraudulent,

misleading, or deceptive statement or claim. For example, a communication violates this Rule if it:

(1) contains false or misleading information; or

(2) states or implies that the outcome of a particular legal matter was not or will not be related to its

facts or merits; or

(3) compares the lawyer’s services with other lawyers’ services, unless the comparison can be factually

substantiated; or

(4) is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve, or states or implies

that the lawyer can achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other

law.

I think we both agree the Virginia version of Rule 7.1 is overly-restrictive. In a world where law school applicants have ready access to information that can easily counter law school promotional hype or spin, AND in which law schools are already subjected to Standard's Five's requirement of full disclosure that is fair and accurate (a test that I believe is more restrictive than the current Model Rule 7.1 for lawyers), I believe the legal community should be using its efforts to convert more states to the ABA's Model Rule 7.1 approach, rather than attempting to counter hypothetical injury to law school applicants that can be avoided with a little diligence and a reasonable amount of common sense on their part.

[Andrew Perlman]

David,

You're right that the new Model Rule is not the same as Rule 7.1 in Virginia and that E2K liberalized the rule to some degree. That said, many (most?) states still follow the old version of Rule 7.1.

And even more importantly, the current version of 7.1 is still considerably more restrictive than other standards that exist (like the FTC standard). For example, comment 3 still says that: "An advertisement that truthfully reports a lawyer's achievements on behalf of clients or former clients may be misleading if presented so as to lead a reasonable person to form an unjustified expectation that the same results could be obtained for other clients in similar matters without reference to the specific factual and legal circumstances of each client's case. Similarly, an unsubstantiated comparison of the lawyer's services or fees with the services or fees of other lawyers may be misleading if presented with such specificity as would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the comparison can be substantiated. The inclusion of an appropriate disclaimer or qualifying language may preclude a finding that a statement is likely to create unjustified expectations or otherwise mislead a prospective client."

Either way, I think it's fair to say that 7.1 (both old and new) prohibit the kinds of promotional materials that law schools regularly produce. So I don't think widespread adoption of the new Model Rule would change the analysis here.

Anyway, thanks for the interesting discussion. As I said in my opening post I'm not a big fan of advertising restrictions. In fact, I think the new Rule 7.1 doesn't go far enough. My primary point was (and is) that there seems to be a bit of hypocrisy on this issue.

[Prof Yabut]

Far as I can tell, "a bit of hypocrisy" is as little as you're ever likely to find in most sectors and aspects of the legal profession.

[Thomas]

Speaking of misleading statements used to entice applications, how about this bit:

The Harvard Law School does not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, national or ethnic origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, marital or parental status, handicap, source of income, or status as a Vietnam-era or disabled veteran in admission to, access to, treatment in, or employment in its programs and activities.

[Mark Nuckols]

[email I sent to participants at the recent Indiana rankings symposium]

I see that you are a participant in IUB's upcoming symposium regarding law school rankings. I spent my first year of law school at IUB before transferring to GULC and would like to offer a few (hopefully) relevant observations about the current rankings system (i.e. USNWR) and how IUB conducts itself with respect to that system.

First of all, I have been for several years astounded at IUB's apparent practice of offering employment to a significant percentage of its graduating 3Ls. The proffered "employment" are three week research internships, which IUB reputedly reports to USNWR as part of their "employed at graduation" numbers. I know more than a few 2002 graduates of IUB who have not found even the most modest legally related employment and who find IUB's quite high figures to be laughable, albeit bitterly so. In fact, if you take them at face value, IUB appears to be exceptionally successful in this respect, surpassed only by George Mason's law school among the top ranked 75 schools in America outside of the top 20. I don't have the time to run a regression analysis but at first glance IUB's numbers look very, very anamolous (read: suspicious) compared to its peers.

Of course, I am sure Dean Robel can defend this as not being a falsehood, at least if construed narrowly enough. However, I would pose a question to you, and her as well: might not a law school have some obligation to report more "reliable" (read: truthful) numbers if potential students in fact rely on such numbers when contemplating enrollment at IU, or in law school more generally. I also find the tendency to defend any practice with which you can get away as fair game because you can get away with it as rather demeaning to the profession: it simply reinforces the view that lawyers are sleazeballs.

Another, related problem at IUB is basic academic integrity. I am currently a student at Tuck School of Business and I graduated with honors from GULC. And I can state categorically that practices I witnessed at IUB would never be tolerated at either Georgetown or Dartmouth. I observed several IUB faculty denigrate traditional norms of academic integrity as simply tired old bourgeois ethics (cites on request). And with respect to so-called blind grading, there were both apparent substantive and blatant procedural violations of blind grading that disgusted much of my class. In fact, in one example, Dean Robel had to (reluctantlly I am sure) administratively adjust the grades of some 20% of our section for two classes. I will spare you the details, unless you ask for them, but the clear impression was that two professors indulged in non-blind grading that appeared to be clearly motivated by animus and political zealotry.

Of course, lapses occur in any human undertaking. What I found disappointing about IUB is that Dean Robel seemed to adopt the stance that the interests of students qua students were derisory and that academic ethics were, and are, perhaps no more important. Much as the Catholic Church in America decided that the prerogatives of the clergy were far more important than the interests of children and adolescents victimized by some of its clergy, IUB reacted to this apparent breach of academic integrity by threatening students who complained and circling the wagons around administrators and faculty. It's perhaps a natural response, but one I would not expect from administrators who value integrity and honesty.

Such a pattern seems entirely consonant with such cheap transparent tricks as boosting your ratings in a magazine by calling a three week internship a real job, and I believe are unworthy of any institution trains future lawyers and in fact requires them to take courses in ethics. Of course, maybe I'm just hopelessly old fashioned.

Regards,

Mark Nuckols

[Mark Nuckols]

[an email I received yesterday and my response. needless to say I am sure Professor Steele will have no reply or even idea what ethical issues are at stake in these sorts of matters. Jeepers you folks are drones. Thanks god I'm at Tuck. MBA students may be dullards but at least they're not drones.]

Mark:

Has IUB publicly acknowledged the facts you set forth? If so, where?

John Steele

-----------------------------------------------

Sure. They posted these details on the part of the IU Law School website titled "scammy tricks we employ to boost our rankings."
url: www.law.indiana.edu

Jeepers, what a dense query. Does GULC acknowledge that Judy C. Areen was on the Worldcom audit committee or how much she cased in in stock options? No, nowhere at all. That's because lawyers generally confuse sanctimoniousness with ethical conduct. Speaking of GULC, I once listened to Mr. Human Rights Robert Drinan justify killing Muslims at Srebrenica because the Serbs were against NATO and thus American Imperialism blahblahblha.

Is there a record of Hitler authorizing the use of Zyclon B? (Oh that's right, lawyers typically don't know any history, do you?)
No, institutions don't usually broadcast things they know to be dodgy conduct.

Anyway, I had faculty and fellow students at IU tell me about this practice, and I confirmed it with their Career Office. But of course I doubt you'll get Dean Robel to say explicitly, well yes we employed these grads to boost our USNWR ranking.

[Joel H. Wolff]

I find this discussion very interesting and somewhat a bit “ivory tower.” However, it is very important to take what Professor Perlman has said to heart because of the real world consequences of what many, including myself perceive as a “bait-and-switch” in law school education around the United States and the oppressive financial burden that graduate student loans put on the average legal practitioner in this day and age.

Although there is no direct malfeasance, there is a certain reliance by many a law school student that I have come into contact with that if they do the 3 years of school and they pass the bar, they will be statistically “safe” with a job paying the statistically “average” salary as per the law school’s numbers and facts. The figures that I am talking about were heavily advertised by my law school alma mater, as well as many alma maters of friends and associates in the legal profession. This advertising was done by the schools to increase their enrollment sans the moral responsibility to sit down and talk to students about what they are actually going to be burdened with for a great number of years to come.

There might not be a “legal cause of action” against these schools for the extreme debt burden that it imposed after three years of education however there is also a certain amount of disingenuous behavior by the law schools by minimizing the actual real world facts of the tight job markets that are present in most major cities around the United States.

For people who disagree with the Professor’s argument, please do not talk about “puffing” or the right to “pump up” your product. This only puts legal education into the category of used car sales which is where it might belong in the long run. Law school education and educational institutions have the right to compete and they have the right to be aggressive for the student monies however, they also have a responsibility to take on the job of being honest to the student of what awaits them when they graduate. This is something that is sorely lacking across the board.

I have my own law practice and I have accepted my law school debts however I know countless “horror stories” of people coming out of law school with $100,000+ debt with no job and absolutely no help from their alma mater because the school is now done with them and the law school is onto their next “mark.”

[John Steele]

I agree with Joel's thoughts, and with Andrew's. While there is some truth in what David G says, I know way too many law school students who tried to figure out the law school admittance scene but could not.

The amount of available information is increasing, so the problem may be getting better.

But the law schools have greater incentives to "game" the system.

The cost of law school keeps rising, and it's only fair that the schools be very open about the consumer info the prospective admits need.

But there is a collective action problem, as each school fears that other schools will cheat and "game."

I know what the solution is in the commercial world. Have a high-level official sign the numbers under oath each year. Too harsh? Probably.

[H. Reasoner]

I came across this discussion whilst googling my potential law school, Roger Williams. I am so glad I did. I realize now, after reading this topic along with hundreds of posts from disgruntled graduates of RWU on other boards, that Roger Williams is a scam and was actually caught by the Providence Journal for lying about much of their prospective student info.

Thank You Andrew, you saved me three years of hell and easily $150,000.

[Pablo "The Truth" Montoya]

Southern New England School of Law is a lousy school and a poor choice for someone who really wants to attend law school. If your LSAT score fell in the 145-149 range, which just bumps you out of places such as Maine or New England School of Law which require a 152-156. Retake the exam and score higher rather than wasting time and loan money as I did at this substandard institution as I did.

You will have trouble getting a job even if you do pass the Mass or CT bar after graduating. This school has a terrible reputation in the local as well as the national legal community. The ABA is well aware of all of SNESL's shortcomings and that is why this school has been denied everytime it has tried to get ABA approval status. In the late 1990's SNESL had to lay off half of it's faculty and almost had to close down completely due to financial difficulties. Google the school if you don't believe me!

It will not surprise if one day this school does close down due to financial problems or students not coming there. SNESL is a community college which has Law written in it's title. At least at a community college one can learn a trade in which one could earn a future living the same can't be said about SNESL!

SNESL = Awful Legal Education!

[Pablo]

I went to the SNESL graduation in 2008 and the speaker was this clown named Carey Parent who told the graduates that SNESL would prevail in their suit against the schools/individuals who quashed their merger bid with UMass-Dartmouth in 2005. He was the attorney representing the school, which isn't saying much and I am sure the parties SNESL is suing are really quaking in their boots of having to go against a SNESL alumni. Some SNESL alums doc not know whether to read the law book for right to left or left to right, that is why their is a special education division at SNESL. Attorney Parent was probably a regular there.

Do not believe him, Dean Ward or anyone else who works at or is affiliated with Southern New England School of Law. It is there latest fairy tale or bit of wishful thinking that they will tell prospcetive students to entice them into attending their awful law school. This was how they got me to attend as a 1l in 2003 (The merger pipe dream), thankfully I quit before I was too far behind eight-ball. SNESL is not now and will never be an ABA accredited law school. If you go there you are wasting your money and your time.

If you are out of college in your late twenties or early thirties and are being a career path in a certain industry, don't forsake it for this lousy school. At the end all you will have to show for your effort are massive school loans and a diploma that isn't fit to hang in an outhouse. It is the largest crappiest diploma you have ever seen, I saw it what a joke.

To those people who graduated from SNESL who I knew and went to school with who may be reading this. Have fun paying back your loans on a 30,000 dollar a year public defenders or assistant district attorney's salary. Maybe you have failed the bar multiple times and have to consider a new career choice. I won't name those unfortunate people. Maybe they will post an answer in defense of this horrid school?

"Be smart - Do not start a legal education at SNESL!"

[Stone Cold Steve Austin]

Don't be a stupid

Don't be a fool

SNESL is a lousy school.

You'll run up loans and lots of debt

and be left with an empty wallet

along with much regret.

I was once a stupid fool

Who went and attended this horrible school

But now I know that facts and have the proof

I come only to speak the truth.

Just take a look at the bar passage rate

and do not make the same mistake I did

Because now I know the real true crime

Was that I wasted my money and my time.

Those are things you can never get back

SNESL sucks a big dick and thats a fact!

How do you like them apples - SNESL alums.

****************Happy Googling*****************

[Jake the Snake!]

going with the wrestler theme I'm Jake the Snake! :)

SNESL SUCKS! and the latest bar exam results prove it yet again! DO NOT GO TO THIS SCHOOL!! Unless of course you want 100k in student loans , a diploma from a poorly thought of school and you MIGHT not even pass the bar exam.

CT and Mass are the only 2 of 50 states you can sit for the bar exam. So if you want to stay in the area great! but hopefully life, relationships or job offers and job promotions in big firms doesn't force you to move to another state in your life. There are a few more states that will let you practice ONCE YOU PASS the first exam.

Go to the CT bar exam site and you will see allt he states. SNESL has only broke 50% pass rate once in all the stats posted and that is only when 8 took the test. 9 out of 20 takers is only 45% in July and I hear that 60% passed the MAss bar in July when 91% of first time takers passed and 86% overall--that is a poor pass rate 60%, but especially in light of an easier test in July than in Feb where only 60% overall passed.

I agree check out the mass and CT bar exam sites and then google SNESL and you will see it is not well respected ANYWHERE and fought to get ABA approval for a decade without success. That should speak volumes...if needed retake the LSAT vs retaking the bar exam with 100k in loans in 3 years

GOOGLE AWAY... and I'll defend my post.

[The SNESL Critic]

The last post is absolutely correct. If you want to stay in Mass and CT and can find a job SNESL will be an okay choice for you. If you have plans of practicing one day in another state, it isn't such a prudent choice.

I was a former SMESL Student, I stopped going to the awful school. Do not make the SNESL mistake. They (school officials/student tour guides) will talk about all the positives, but will gloss over all the negatives. The negatives, low bar passage rate, low overall LSAT scores (for students), lousy classes and poor funding are why this school is not ABA approved.

I see nothing on the horizon that will change the course this school is on. Law school is a huge commitment of time and money. Google SNESL, read these blogs and ask yourself one question will I be able to get a job in the highly competative legal community once I graduate from SNESL? Will employers in Mass and CT choose me over similarly qualified graduates who have degrees from ABA approved schools? Probably not!

Re-take the LSAT, improve your score and apply again for ABA approved schools. Your degree at the end of three years will be worth a lot more.

Google away and try to dispute this post.

"SNESL Truth 2009 - Campaign to inform the masses"

[Bobby "The Liar" Jabroni]

Well I graduated from SNESL and I am practicing law in traffic court in Conneticut. So if you are thinking of speeding criminally in New Haven, you better think twice or I will put you in the slammer. I will make sure the court also imposes the maximum fine possible, I never thought that I Rob would be making a diffence in the lives of the men and women who drive the roads in The Nutmeg State. Like a police office i have a sworn duty to protect and serve the citizens of this great state.

People on here saying this school sucks have it all wrong. I like making a $200.00 - $300.00 stipend a week being a traffic prosecutor. Never mind that I have trouble making my rent payment or my monthly school loan amount is $600.00. I am doing god's work, and $29,000 - $30,000 a year is all I need to survive. I am as broke as a joke! I am also not concerned with the hundreds of rejection letters for jobs I got once out of SNESL and a member of the CT bar. I am the king of my world and SNESL gave me the keys for entering into and ruling my kingdom. Hey I'll tell you everything is okay because you can always trust Rob!

Bobby "The Liar" AKA "The King of Wishful Thinking"

*PS: Dean Ward Thanks for the memories and the $130,000 in student loans, I will never, ever forget you.*

[Marcus "The Darkness"]

Rob,

You is a lying mother fucker. You are just working in traffic court and your crazy ass is lying again. You are not practicipating in trials no more than my black ass is right now! I have taken this stupid bar like seven times and I ain't passing it. Shit that mother is hard, that is the truth!

SNESL sucked and if I did pass I would be in CT prosecuting traffic offenders like your lying ass, Rob. Rob tell the truth, Man! I am sick and tired of you lying like a rug. Be real, man! SNESL was whack and we got a useless education. There is no way to deceive your way out of that, Rob.

I am out with out a doubt.

Fuck SNESL, Fuck it bigtime

Marcus "The Darkness"

[Thomas "The Homo" MacClean]

Rob,

I never told you that all the times we were studying that I had a bigtime crush on you. I know I am a morman and a huge conservative republican but in reality I was a "Log Cabin" Republication. Rob if you read this I am leaving my wife and embarking on a new journey one that hopefully leads you and I together. 3 years at SNESL confirmed my own feelings toward men. In three years I studied a classmate harder than I studied a law book.

Sure I didn't have to go to SNESL to explore my gay feelings but with the lack of education it sure gave me something to fill the void with.

Rob I love you.

Thomas