Law School Discussion

Law Students => Online Law Schools => Topic started by: Marauder on April 16, 2012, 05:50:36 PM

Title: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: Marauder on April 16, 2012, 05:50:36 PM
Any opinions on either school mentioned above?
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: sollicitus on April 16, 2012, 06:33:46 PM
Concord is regionally accredited. Taft isn't.

You can get some govt aid for Concord, Good look at a DETC school.

Other than that, both are only good in CA. If you are ok with that then I'd go with Concord.
Just don't fall for the EJD BS if you do.

PS
That minibar kills 3/4 of it's own. Fear it.

Why not just buckle down and get into an ABA school?
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: calgal27 on April 16, 2012, 07:08:46 PM
Hi.  I attempted Taft.  I lasted 6 weeks.  I am 46.  I am not looking at law school as a career but rather just to learn the law.

I did not feel the instructors at Taft gave criticism specifically to my work.  For example, I would brief a case and get 3/4.  Well, that is 75%.  I would ask what I did wrong or where I could improve, and the response was "canned.". The response did not say anything specific related to my work, but rather the response would work for anyone's work.

I think a better choice might be California School of Law because you have to attend class online 2 nights a week.  There is also the new St. Francis School of Law.  Concord is expensive and you get the same online law degree that you would get from any online law school.  If you want to go the cheap route, try Northwestern California School of Law.  Cheap and you get the exact same recognition as you would going to Taft or Concored for 1/4 the cost.

Good luck!
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: Marauder on April 16, 2012, 09:28:27 PM
Does local, state and federal employment recognize Concord's or Taft law degrees? I also need to work f/t while attending law school, so B&M schools are not an option for me. 

@Calgal27 when did you attend Taft?  Did you feel the admittance to the school was very liberal?
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: passaroa25 on April 17, 2012, 12:47:56 AM
Keep in mind that whichever school you choose, you will have to learn a huge amount of material in a year so that you can pass the FYLSE on the first try.  You will have to know much more about contracts, torts, and criminal law than any brick and mortar first year law school student.    If you don't live in California, add flight, hotel, and meal expenses for every time you need to take the exam again.   
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: john4040 on April 17, 2012, 12:49:36 AM
Don't go to either.  You can thank me later.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: sollicitus on April 17, 2012, 08:16:26 AM
Hi.  I attempted Taft.  I lasted 6 weeks.  I am 46.  I am not looking at law school as a career but rather just to learn the law.

I did not feel the instructors at Taft gave criticism specifically to my work.  For example, I would brief a case and get 3/4.  Well, that is 75%.  I would ask what I did wrong or where I could improve, and the response was "canned.". The response did not say anything specific related to my work, but rather the response would work for anyone's work.

I think a better choice might be California School of Law because you have to attend class online 2 nights a week.  There is also the new St. Francis School of Law.  Concord is expensive and you get the same online law degree that you would get from any online law school.  If you want to go the cheap route, try Northwestern California School of Law.  Cheap and you get the exact same recognition as you would going to Taft or Concored for 1/4 the cost.

Good luck!

Not true. Regionally accredited schools get more respect and many employers have policies to refuse to hire none regional grads, since they view detc as "nonaccredited". (even though the dept of ed feels otherwise)
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: sollicitus on April 17, 2012, 08:17:54 AM
Does local, state and federal employment recognize Concord's or Taft law degrees? I also need to work f/t while attending law school, so B&M schools are not an option for me. 

@Calgal27 when did you attend Taft?  Did you feel the admittance to the school was very liberal?

ask them. Each dept has it's own standard.

As a general rule though, no they do not. It is not ABA. Most require that.
If you are looking to just get promoted have you considered a regionally accredited masters in law?
Most will view that better than a non aba JD.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: GovLaw on April 17, 2012, 11:16:13 AM
Taft is DETC accredited, which (while not regional) is better than nothing - some of the online schools have no legitimate accreditation.  I work for state government, in my experience the precedence for consideration for those legal positions which do not require admittance to the bar is as follows:

1) B&M ABA accredited law degree and bar passage.
2) B&M accredited (not ABA) law degree and bar passage
3) B&M ABA accredited law degree without bar
4) Online accredited (not ABA) law degree and bar passage
5) B&M accredited (not ABA) law degree without bar
6) Online accredited (not ABA) law degree without bar
7) Any law degree without any accreditation and without bar (generally not even recognized)

For positions requiring admittance to the bar (assuming otherwise bar eligible):

1) B&M ABA accredited law degree and bar passage.
2) B&M accredited (not ABA) law degree and bar passage
3) Online accredited (not ABA) law degree and bar passage

Education not acceptable for positions requiring admittance to the bar (even if otherwise bar eligible):

1) B&M ABA accredited law degree without bar
2) B&M accredited (not ABA) law degree without bar
3) Online accredited (not ABA) law degree without bar
4) Any law degree without any accreditation, either with or without bar

This just reflects my experience and talking to other working professionals in state government who have knowledge in this area – YMMV.  Good luck in whatever you do.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: Maintain FL 350 on April 17, 2012, 11:34:39 AM
Most government legal jobs will probably not consider graduates of either school. I recently worked a government law office in California and all of the recent hires were either former interns from ABA schools or experienced attorneys from ABA schools. Hiring is so competitive right now that government offices have the luxury of being very picky.

If a Taft or Concord grad passed the baby bar, passed the bar, worked solo for, say, five years and built up lots of good trial and transactional experience, then applied to government job . . . well, maybe. Still a longshot. I would contact each school and ask how many graduates are working in government.

I don't know where the OP is located, but many ABA and all CBE school offer part-time programs for students who work full time. I started law school in my early thirties with a family, a mortgage, the works. I'll graduate from an ABA part-time program in a few weeks. It is a grind, but it can be done!
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: sollicitus on April 17, 2012, 06:24:27 PM
Taft is DETC accredited, which (while not regional) is better than nothing - some of the online schools have no legitimate accreditation.  I work for state government, in my experience the precedence for consideration for those legal positions which do not require admittance to the bar is as follows:

1) B&M ABA accredited law degree and bar passage.
2) B&M accredited (not ABA) law degree and bar passage
3) B&M ABA accredited law degree without bar
4) Online accredited (not ABA) law degree and bar passage
5) B&M accredited (not ABA) law degree without bar
6) Online accredited (not ABA) law degree without bar
7) Any law degree without any accreditation and without bar (generally not even recognized)

For positions requiring admittance to the bar (assuming otherwise bar eligible):

1) B&M ABA accredited law degree and bar passage.
2) B&M accredited (not ABA) law degree and bar passage
3) Online accredited (not ABA) law degree and bar passage

Education not acceptable for positions requiring admittance to the bar (even if otherwise bar eligible):

1) B&M ABA accredited law degree without bar
2) B&M accredited (not ABA) law degree without bar
3) Online accredited (not ABA) law degree without bar
4) Any law degree without any accreditation, either with or without bar

This just reflects my experience and talking to other working professionals in state government who have knowledge in this area – YMMV.  Good luck in whatever you do.

which govt positions for which agency do these apply? That info would save the OP a lot of guessing since the govt is a huge umbrella.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: legalpractitioner on April 17, 2012, 07:40:23 PM
Either one is fine if you want a California law license.  Taft traditionally gives low grades, I graduated with something like a 2.79 and passed the bar on the first go.  Your odds of actually getting through such a program are about 10-1 against though.  The Feds or State will not likely hire you though you can likely work as contract Public defender. As for getting jobs, be ready to fly solo unless you have relatives in the business.  If it is geographically possible to attend an ABA or non ABA state accredited law school, do so instead.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: calgal27 on April 18, 2012, 05:58:29 PM
Hi.  Taft has an online interview.  However, I do not think they turn anyone away.  The biggest reqirement to get into law school is the LSAT.  That is not required at Taft so as long as you have the credentials they want, they will take you.   I attended Taft in 2008, I think. 



Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: sollicitus on April 18, 2012, 06:15:24 PM
people often mention the lack of an lsat as a perk to a non-aba school. I fail to see why or how. It is not a flesh eating monster (no worse than any other exam) and if you can't get a passing score on it, you should realize that those 9/10 that Jon mentioned will be you. (truth)
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: sollicitus on April 18, 2012, 06:18:04 PM
Most government legal jobs will probably not consider graduates of either school. I recently worked a government law office in California and all of the recent hires were either former interns from ABA schools or experienced attorneys from ABA schools. Hiring is so competitive right now that government offices have the luxury of being very picky.

If a Taft or Concord grad passed the baby bar, passed the bar, worked solo for, say, five years and built up lots of good trial and transactional experience, then applied to government job . . . well, maybe. Still a longshot. I would contact each school and ask how many graduates are working in government.

I don't know where the OP is located, but many ABA and all CBE school offer part-time programs for students who work full time. I started law school in my early thirties with a family, a mortgage, the works. I'll graduate from an ABA part-time program in a few weeks. It is a grind, but it can be done!

all that for a govt job? No.

If you have 5 years experience as a solo practioner and havn't had to eat your own shoes for sustenance at that point, then why would any sane person close shop and go work for a govt job? That wouldn't make any sense in reality since the first 5 years are where you go into debt building the thing. That would be like making all your mortgage payments just to burn your house to roast marshmellows on. No sane person would start out day one with that as their game plan. 
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: passaroa25 on April 18, 2012, 08:03:01 PM
The five year game plan is, in actuality, what some state bar agencies require before they will allow a JD grad of an online school to even take their  exam.

Don't knock government jobs.  Most federal agencies require some pretty hefty credentials.

Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: Maintain FL 350 on April 18, 2012, 10:17:42 PM
People leave private practice for the public sector all the time. Fewer hours, good benefits, predictable pay increases, a pension (possibly), no office rent, no secretary/paralegal to pay, no bar dues, no need to carry malpractice insurance, and no Westlaw/Lexis subscription are just a few of the reasons.

Depending on the particular government agency the salary may not be too bad, either. At most DA/PD offices in my area starting pay is $65-70K, reaching about $100k within five or six years.

Minus all the overhead I just mentioned, can the average solo practitioner really expect to make much more?
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: Paramedic on April 19, 2012, 12:10:21 AM
I've worked at a two California state agencies (SCIF and CDCR). SCIF hired CBE's and CDCR had so many openings that many of those positions went unstaffed.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: Maintain FL 350 on April 19, 2012, 09:24:06 AM
I'm not familiar with SCIF or CDCR, what agencies are those?

Certainly there is competitive variation among government agencies when it comes to hiring. A position with the Attorney General's office in San Francisco is going to be more competitive than a job with an unknown agency in a small town, for example. Nonetheless, recent law grads are struggling to find work right now. Any work.

My local PD's office recently had eight positions to fill. They received something like 300+ applications. When I recently interned a government agency we actually had "Volunteer Attorneys" who had passed the bar and were working for free hoping that a position would open up.   
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: sollicitus on April 19, 2012, 07:47:36 PM
The five year game plan is, in actuality, what some state bar agencies require before they will allow a JD grad of an online school to even take their  exam.

Don't knock government jobs.  Most federal agencies require some pretty hefty credentials.

She says to the veteran......

Hard dosn't make better. (common mistake)
As for the 5year that is to transfer. It is a weeding out process. It is a floor not a ceiling.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: passaroa25 on April 20, 2012, 04:47:41 PM
Again, do a little research, so that your comments are backed by actual knowledge.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: sollicitus on April 21, 2012, 12:21:03 PM
I'm a thrid year ABA lawstudent who used to work for the govt you mention and has looked into the online options and requirments (chose not to do so but still looked into it)

I know you tried law school and then quit for a better life as a paralegal, but I still know stuff too believe it or not.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: passaroa25 on April 21, 2012, 01:41:22 PM
Which school do you attend?  Which agency did you work for?

I didn't quit law school, per se.  I just never had the money to finish on my own.  And, I don't see a rich man in my future.  The paralegal certificate I earned was within my budget.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: sollicitus on April 22, 2012, 03:40:56 PM
I was Army. No job in the govt is bragging rights. Not even at the VA.

You seem to know your local areas laws, that is all you need to know to work there I guess. A lot of what I refer to is laws from what I suspect are other areas. Lawyers have to take an exam called the MPRE. That is where I get most of my practice ethics that may seem odd to you (including the idea that paralegals shouldn't run their own companies even if their clients are lawyers) I know there is no license required for paralegals, and the few nonrequired you seem to plan to take but take the MPRE too. It will help you understand what lawyers think and are required to do and not do. Most areas allow anyone to sit it (even paralegals) and if you pass it that would look good on a resume since most never will even attempt it. Trust me though, you should at least read the prep books. It will help.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: john4040 on April 23, 2012, 01:36:56 AM
This thread is fcking stupid. 

Do not attend either of these schools!


If you couldn't crack the second tier, you have absolutely no business practicing law.  You have been warned.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: legalpractitioner on April 23, 2012, 07:36:26 AM
"If you couldn't crack the second tier, you have absolutely no business practicing law.  You have been warned."

That's about as stupid as the other stuff posted.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: Opie58 on April 23, 2012, 10:09:53 AM
This thread is fcking stupid. 

Do not attend either of these schools!


If you couldn't crack the second tier, you have absolutely no business practicing law.  You have been warned.

And those that have & are successful???
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: john4040 on April 23, 2012, 10:48:41 AM
And those that have & are successful???

(1) It depends how you measure success.  The way I define it, they're somewhat rare;
(2) Generally, your chances of being successful significantly decline with each jump in tier.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: cerealkiller on April 23, 2012, 12:04:42 PM
And therein lies the rub--not everyone's definition of success is the same. So to conclude that anyone who doesn't crack the second tier, should forget about practicing law is just plain stupid. There are many great lawyers and judges who attended law schools that ranked outside of the top 50. Yes, the likelihood of success increases as one moves higher toward the top 14.  But success in many ways is a personal decision that's unaffected by outside circumstances.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: john4040 on April 23, 2012, 12:28:40 PM
Yep.  Just like one can be "successful" if they win the Special Olympics.

I agree, it was a bit extreme.  But, sometimes, that's what you need to get people to understand that they shouldn't go to law school.  The admission requirements for Tier 2 schools aren't exactly stringent.  Retake the LSAT if you believe you don't belong in a T3 or T4.  Stop feeding the law school bubble and don't ask for a bailout when you can't repay your loans.

I challenge anyone on this board to name 15 successful grads (v100 firm, federal judges, diplomats, CEO/Lead Counsel @ Fortune 500, etc.) from each one of these schools.

Oh, and if you're interested in seeing what the top 47.4% of Taft Law School grads were up to in 2002, before the market crash, here you go:
http://www.taftu.edu/tls/surveyresults.htm

Funny that 89.2% went to Taft to become attorneys, but only 54.1% of the 47.4% that answered are actually practicing law.

I know a paralegal that was enrolled in one of these online scam schools.  Her mind was ABSOLUTELY BLOWN when she discovered that she could never be eligible to practice law in her home state and that the only place she could take the bar was California.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: Maintain FL 350 on April 23, 2012, 01:12:31 PM
I'm not sure that it makes sense to lump T3-T4 grads into the same category as unaccredited online grads. The California bar pass rate for online grads is something like 20%, and thats after the FYLSEX has weeded out a significant number. Of those who pass, some will have successful careers. The numbers, however, are very small.

T3-T4 law schools, on the other hand, produce plenty of successful grads. Do they have the same job opportunities as those from T1 schools with national reputations? Of course not, at least not straight out of law school. Notice that I mentioned "national reputations". Many T1 schools really only have regional reputations that don't travel as well as their grads would like to pretend. Do you honestly think a mid-sized firm in LA, for example, is going to give preference to an Iowa grad over a Southwestern grad?

Of course it all depends on how you choose to define success, but most DA/PD/Midlaw offices are well stocked with such grads. 
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: cerealkiller on April 23, 2012, 01:32:40 PM
I appreciate the homework assignment, but I'll have to decline the invitation.

You're right, to an extent. But, again, you're operating under a very narrow view of what success is, or should be. Not everyone wants to work at a v100 firm, or be a federal judge, diplomat, or CEO/Lead Counsel @ Fortune 500.

It seems that your definition of success is largely equated with money, prestige, or a combination of both. Of course, everyone needs to make money, but the making of it isn't everyone's chief concern. Now granted, money is the chief concern of most want-to-be attorneys. Most 1Ls have dollar signs in their eyes, even though many will never see more than $80,000-$90,000 a year at the height of their legal careers--if they're lucky enough to earn that much.

But some folks pursue legal careers because they truly want to make a difference in their community, albeit small and hugely unprofitable. To say that, for instance, someone who devotes an entire legal career to helping want-to-be parents navigate the confusing and complex landscape of child adoption, but fails to ascend into the upper-middle class, is unsuccessful is incredibly shortsighted. Lawyering was once viewed as a helping profession, first and foremost. To my mind, a lawyer who still understands and lives by this notion is a success, irrespective of the number of digits in her bank account.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: Opie58 on April 23, 2012, 01:34:26 PM
And those that have & are successful???

(1) It depends how you measure success.  The way I define it, they're somewhat rare;
(2) Generally, your chances of being successful significantly decline with each jump in tier.

How about one's own goals achievement?  Who ARE you to dictate if I’m successful if I meet MY goals, but not what you think I should?  A bit arrogant, don’t you think?

Based on your referred link, out of 102 people who responded, 90 wanted to become attorneys, 70 passed the bar, and 55 went on to practice law.  So, there you have you’re 15, at least.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: john4040 on April 23, 2012, 01:40:47 PM
I appreciate the homework assignment, but I'll have to decline the invitation.

You're right, to an extent. But, again, you're operating under a very narrow view of what success is, or should be. Not everyone wants to work at a v100 firm, or be a federal judge, diplomat, or CEO/Lead Counsel @ Fortune 500.

It seems that your definition of success is largely equated with money, prestige, or a combination of both. Of course, everyone needs to make money, but the making of it isn't everyone's chief concern. Now granted, money is the chief concern of most want-to-be attorneys. Most 1Ls have dollar signs in their eyes, even though many will never see more than $80,000-$90,000 a year at the height of their legal careers--if they're lucky enough to earn that much.

But some folks pursue legal careers because they truly want to make a difference in their community, albeit small and hugely unprofitable. To say that, for instance, someone who devotes an entire legal career to helping want-to-be parents navigate the confusing and complex landscape of child adoption, but fails to ascend into the upper-middle class, is unsuccessful is incredibly shortsighted. Lawyering was once viewed as a helping profession, first and foremost. To my mind, a lawyer who still understands and lives by this notion is a success, irrespective of the number of digits in her bank account.

That's fine an dandy, but look at the stats again.  About 90% want to become attorneys.  About 25% actually practice in the legal field.  Most of these folks won't even be able to pursue a legal career.  I suppose there's always room for another successful barrista!
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: john4040 on April 23, 2012, 01:46:30 PM
Based on your referred link, out of 102 people who responded, 90 wanted to become attorneys, 70 passed the bar, and 55 went on to practice law.  So, there you have you’re 15, at least.

Passing the bar is not success.  The bar tests basic legal competence. 

Practicing law is not success.  Many solo attorneys are out there losing their ass and have to take on second jobs just to make ends meet.

P.S. - It's "your", not "you're".
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: cerealkiller on April 23, 2012, 02:05:47 PM
I appreciate the homework assignment, but I'll have to decline the invitation.

You're right, to an extent. But, again, you're operating under a very narrow view of what success is, or should be. Not everyone wants to work at a v100 firm, or be a federal judge, diplomat, or CEO/Lead Counsel @ Fortune 500.

It seems that your definition of success is largely equated with money, prestige, or a combination of both. Of course, everyone needs to make money, but the making of it isn't everyone's chief concern. Now granted, money is the chief concern of most want-to-be attorneys. Most 1Ls have dollar signs in their eyes, even though many will never see more than $80,000-$90,000 a year at the height of their legal careers--if they're lucky enough to earn that much.

But some folks pursue legal careers because they truly want to make a difference in their community, albeit small and hugely unprofitable. To say that, for instance, someone who devotes an entire legal career to helping want-to-be parents navigate the confusing and complex landscape of child adoption, but fails to ascend into the upper-middle class, is unsuccessful is incredibly shortsighted. Lawyering was once viewed as a helping profession, first and foremost. To my mind, a lawyer who still understands and lives by this notion is a success, irrespective of the number of digits in her bank account.

That's fine an dandy, but look at the stats again.  About 90% want to become attorneys.  About 25% actually practice in the legal field.  Most of these folks won't even be able to pursue a legal career.  I suppose there's always room for another successful barrista!

Well, unless we question those fortunate few about their legal careers, we will never know if they are successful or not. As we've illustrated, success is subjective. I will concede, however, that for those who shared your idea of success when setting out to study law at Taft, I think all would agree that they're abject failures, as I doubt any of them have risen to the seats of power of which you covet.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: Opie58 on April 23, 2012, 04:05:52 PM
Based on your referred link, out of 102 people who responded, 90 wanted to become attorneys, 70 passed the bar, and 55 went on to practice law.  So, there you have you’re 15, at least.

Passing the bar is not success.  The bar tests basic legal competence. 

Practicing law is not success.  Many solo attorneys are out there losing their ass and have to take on second jobs just to make ends meet.

P.S. - It's "your", not "you're".

And you know this is true for those folks HOW???  Passing the bar, if that's all you wanted to do, would be a success.  Doing a solo practice, again if that's what you wanted to do, would be a success.  Unless you have something else to show that supports your contention, than you're just another negative Nancy who THINKS they know best by demeaning anyone who pursues any other means than what he (YOU) thinks people should.  We get your point - do it my way or you're a failure in my book.  NOT!!!  And, your vs you're - so what - point was made; debate the issue, not the semantics.


I will concede, however, that for those who shared your idea of success when setting out to study law at Taft, I think all would agree that they're abject failures, as I doubt any of them have risen to the seats of power of which you covet.

Another, lame, subjective, unsupported statement geared toward undermining another's unacceptable path of pursues.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: cerealkiller on April 23, 2012, 04:30:23 PM
Based on your referred link, out of 102 people who responded, 90 wanted to become attorneys, 70 passed the bar, and 55 went on to practice law.  So, there you have you’re 15, at least.

Passing the bar is not success.  The bar tests basic legal competence. 

Practicing law is not success.  Many solo attorneys are out there losing their ass and have to take on second jobs just to make ends meet.

P.S. - It's "your", not "you're".

And you know this is true for those folks HOW???  Passing the bar, if that's all you wanted to do, would be a success.  Doing a solo practice, again if that's what you wanted to do, would be a success.  Unless you have something else to show that supports your contention, than you're just another negative Nancy who THINKS they know best by demeaning anyone who pursues any other means than what he (YOU) thinks people should.  We get your point - do it my way or you're a failure in my book.  NOT!!!  And, your vs you're - so what - point was made; debate the issue, not the semantics.


I will concede, however, that for those who shared your idea of success when setting out to study law at Taft, I think all would agree that they're abject failures, as I doubt any of them have risen to the seats of power of which you covet.

Another, lame, subjective, unsupported statement geared toward undermining another's unacceptable path of pursues.

Learn how to read, Opie58. I think you'll find the skill of some use in the legal profession.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: Opie58 on April 23, 2012, 05:33:41 PM
Why "concede?"  That's what I'm calling "... lame, subjective, and unsupported ..."  It only encourages narrow minded people to believe they have some sort of plausible argument.  The other guy's argument shouldn't even be considered as having any sort of merit.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: sollicitus on April 23, 2012, 06:05:09 PM
If you are easily offended by people looking down on an online degree, avoid any place with ABA grads.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: cerealkiller on April 23, 2012, 06:31:17 PM
Why "concede?"  That's what I'm calling "... lame, subjective, and unsupported ..."  It only encourages narrow minded people to believe they have some sort of plausible argument.  The other guy's argument shouldn't even be considered as having any sort of merit.

Like it or not, he makes a very plausible argument.  I agree with you insofar as the correct definition of "success" is arguable. But it's just silly to ignore the fact that a graduate of an online law school is going to be hampered, rightfully so or not, with more than a few career hurdles. A few of which will never be successfully navigated, no matter how brilliant the individual may be. For instance, no one from an online law school will ever sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: sollicitus on April 23, 2012, 06:33:25 PM
Why "concede?"  That's what I'm calling "... lame, subjective, and unsupported ..."  It only encourages narrow minded people to believe they have some sort of plausible argument.  The other guy's argument shouldn't even be considered as having any sort of merit.

Like it or not, he makes a very plausible argument.  I agree with you insofar as the correct definition of "success" is arguable. But it's just silly to ignore the fact that a graduate of an online law school is going to be hampered, rightfully so or not, with more than a few career hurdles. A few of which will never be successfully navigated, no matter how brilliant the individual may be. For instance, no one from an online law school will ever sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

why not?
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: cerealkiller on April 23, 2012, 06:39:30 PM
Why "concede?"  That's what I'm calling "... lame, subjective, and unsupported ..."  It only encourages narrow minded people to believe they have some sort of plausible argument.  The other guy's argument shouldn't even be considered as having any sort of merit.

Like it or not, he makes a very plausible argument.  I agree with you insofar as the correct definition of "success" is arguable. But it's just silly to ignore the fact that a graduate of an online law school is going to be hampered, rightfully so or not, with more than a few career hurdles. A few of which will never be successfully navigated, no matter how brilliant the individual may be. For instance, no one from an online law school will ever sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

why not?

You're kidding, right?

Never is a really long time though, isn't it? Well, I suppose if brick and mortar schools fall to the wayside and Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and handful of outliers begin teaching law exclusively online, it's possible.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: legalpractitioner on April 23, 2012, 07:03:21 PM
Slaving away at big law is hardly my idea of success.  No one who wants to go into big law or be a judge's clerk is going to attend an online school. Therefore, the online grad obviously has an immediate and realistic goal of "mal"practicing solo for a few years first and then getting better and specializing.  Online grads with unrealisitic goals are likely not the type who are going to pass the FYBE.  Taft is upfront in its materials, it is not a scam and has a modest group of lawyer alumni.  The online attorney is facing the same challenges as a non ABA grad or a T-4 in the current job market.  Mr. T-1 will miss all the fun in representing SSI cases and doing public defense and instead will be working mind numbing hours doing dumb ass document reviews.  I pity the fool.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: legalpractitioner on April 23, 2012, 07:16:14 PM
Why "concede?"  That's what I'm calling "... lame, subjective, and unsupported ..."  It only encourages narrow minded people to believe they have some sort of plausible argument.  The other guy's argument shouldn't even be considered as having any sort of merit.

Like it or not, he makes a very plausible argument.  I agree with you insofar as the correct definition of "success" is arguable. But it's just silly to ignore the fact that a graduate of an online law school is going to be hampered, rightfully so or not, with more than a few career hurdles. A few of which will never be successfully navigated, no matter how brilliant the individual may be. For instance, no one from an online law school will ever sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Why not? A law degree is not even constitutionally required to sit on SCOTUS.  People may get fed up with the ABA as the self appointed guardian of who is qualified.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: john4040 on April 23, 2012, 07:53:46 PM
Why "concede?"  That's what I'm calling "... lame, subjective, and unsupported ..."  It only encourages narrow minded people to believe they have some sort of plausible argument.  The other guy's argument shouldn't even be considered as having any sort of merit.

*Is Opie58*
*Thinks he is a "ruthless pitbull in the courtroom" who will never back down*
*Furiously writes 2/3 of reply to Motion for Summary Judment on minor point that should be conceded*
*Wonders why judge just dismissed his personal injury case on summary judgment*
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: Opie58 on April 23, 2012, 08:00:17 PM
Why "concede?"  That's what I'm calling "... lame, subjective, and unsupported ..."  It only encourages narrow minded people to believe they have some sort of plausible argument.  The other guy's argument shouldn't even be considered as having any sort of merit.

Like it or not, he makes a very plausible argument.  I agree with you insofar as the correct definition of "success" is arguable. But it's just silly to ignore the fact that a graduate of an online law school is going to be hampered, rightfully so or not, with more than a few career hurdles. A few of which will never be successfully navigated, no matter how brilliant the individual may be. For instance, no one from an online law school will ever sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

why not?

You're kidding, right?

Never is a really long time though, isn't it? Well, I suppose if brick and mortar schools fall to the wayside and Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and handful of outliers begin teaching law exclusively online, it's possible.

So, you’re saying ALL the SCOTUS Justices who sat on the Court before the existence of some self-appointed elitist ABA group came along and all the pivotal rulings on Constitutional Law are irrelevant because those pre-ABA Justices failed to graduate from an ABA-approved school and shouldn't have been sitting on the Court?  A bit short-sighted, don’t you think?  That's the problem with those little groups who become too big for the britches.  Who’s to say the ABA will be around 10, 20 years from now.  Like “jonlevy” asked, where does it say someone has be a graduate from an ABA-approved school?  Why are we even entertaining the idea that someone has to make limitations on people to prosper in a Country founded on the principles of “… Life , Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness …”  Are we so willing to become enslaved by a Government that is to be limited, not given unilateral or uncontrolled, power?  Guidelines are one thing, but limitations are way too much.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: Opie58 on April 23, 2012, 08:01:38 PM
Why "concede?"  That's what I'm calling "... lame, subjective, and unsupported ..."  It only encourages narrow minded people to believe they have some sort of plausible argument.  The other guy's argument shouldn't even be considered as having any sort of merit.

*Is Opie58*
*Thinks he is a "ruthless pitbull in the courtroom" who will never back down*
*Writes 2/3 of reply to Motion for Summary Judment on minor point that should be conceded*
*Wonders why judge just dismissed his personal injury case on summary judgment*

Maybe.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: john4040 on April 23, 2012, 08:08:34 PM
Mr. T-1 will miss all the fun in representing SSI cases and doing public defense and instead will be working mind numbing hours doing dumb ass document reviews.  I pity the fool.

Or, the T-1 grad clerks for a federal court, goes to a mid-sized firm, argues a MTD worth $500,000 his first week there, wins said MTD against overzealous TTTT, decides he wants to clerk at a prestigious foreign tribunal, applies and gets accepted to prestigious foreign tribunal.

None of those options would have been available had I graduated from an online law school.  I'd rather have more doors open to me at the begining of my career than to be stuck litigating SSI cases and DUI defense and have to constantly prove myself to others.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: legalpractitioner on April 23, 2012, 08:42:28 PM
But that's what I said from the start, only a slightly delusional individual would go into online law school if their initial goal was anything other than solo practice in California.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: legalpractitioner on April 23, 2012, 08:44:24 PM
Problem with you guys is you have no sense of humor.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: cerealkiller on April 23, 2012, 08:59:24 PM
Why "concede?"  That's what I'm calling "... lame, subjective, and unsupported ..."  It only encourages narrow minded people to believe they have some sort of plausible argument.  The other guy's argument shouldn't even be considered as having any sort of merit.

Like it or not, he makes a very plausible argument.  I agree with you insofar as the correct definition of "success" is arguable. But it's just silly to ignore the fact that a graduate of an online law school is going to be hampered, rightfully so or not, with more than a few career hurdles. A few of which will never be successfully navigated, no matter how brilliant the individual may be. For instance, no one from an online law school will ever sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Why not? A law degree is not even constitutionally required to sit on SCOTUS.  People may get fed up with the ABA as the self appointed guardian of who is qualified.

Too bad "the people" don't nominate SCOTUS Justices, Presidents do. With or without the ABA, the SCOTUS nominations would look much the same as today with nominees coming primarily out of the best law schools in the country.



Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: legalpractitioner on April 23, 2012, 10:09:15 PM

Too bad "the people" don't nominate SCOTUS Justices, Presidents do. With or without the ABA, the SCOTUS nominations would look much the same as today with nominees coming primarily out of the best law schools in the country.

Ever read the "Power Elite" by C Wright Mills?  That is why we have SCOTUS judges who are essentially corporate and government schills.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: cerealkiller on April 23, 2012, 10:19:43 PM

Too bad "the people" don't nominate SCOTUS Justices, Presidents do. With or without the ABA, the SCOTUS nominations would look much the same as today with nominees coming primarily out of the best law schools in the country.

Ever read the "Power Elite" by C Wright Mills?  That is why we have SCOTUS judges who are essentially corporate and government schills.

And that would somehow magically change if only the elitists would allow non-ABA grads to crash the party? I think not.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: Marauder on April 23, 2012, 10:38:47 PM
I spoke to the HR analyst that works for the county I live in, and this is what I was told. As of today a Taft Law Degree is recognized since it is a school listed in CHEA. 
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: Opie58 on April 24, 2012, 08:29:04 AM
If you are easily offended by people looking down on an online degree, avoid any place with ABA grads.

I do avoid those people who believe they are better than those who did not go to the schools they did or anything else they feel justified to place themselves on a pedestal above someone else.  For those people, they will never really be happy with themselves because some “Jones” will always have something they don’t and will feel they don’t measure up – “since I feel substandard, I’ll make others feel substandard so I can feel better about myself” (deflection psychology).  What happen to judging someone on their worth & actions??  Or, character doesn’t really matter anymore – how sad?  If that is what I have to face working in another firm, than no, I will avoid those kinds of conceited, self-absorbed, narrow-minded folks and challenge them from my small personable solo practice representing the common underdogs of our fine country as I have for my entire adult life.  Will I be rich – not in material measurements, but in my own self-esteem I’ll be a millionaire; but, each his own.  How one judges success for them is not contingent on what I think or believe.  What they choose for themselves should be no one else’s business as long as they can support themselves and their family and not harm others along the way.  If I choose to attend a nontraditional law school, knowing full well of the imposed limitations now in place by some sort of self-appointed political body that was irrelevant less than 100 years ago, and can make my way in it, who’s place is it to judge what or how I do it?  That’s what attracts me to California’s Bar – giving everyone a chance to pursue their own dreams their own way, but setting the standards of conduct to weed out those who follow the dark side or fails to meet minimum standards of competency.  Some will agree with I present, others will not; again, what one chooses to exercise is a personal choice.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: john4040 on April 24, 2012, 11:22:30 AM
I do avoid those people who believe they are better than those who did not go to the schools they did or anything else they feel justified to place themselves on a pedestal above someone else.  For those people, they will never really be happy with themselves because some “Jones” will always have something they don’t and will feel they don’t measure up – “since I feel substandard, I’ll make others feel substandard so I can feel better about myself” (deflection psychology).  What happen to judging someone on their worth & actions??  Or, character doesn’t really matter anymore – how sad?  If that is what I have to face working in another firm, than no, I will avoid those kinds of conceited, self-absorbed, narrow-minded folks and challenge them from my small personable solo practice representing the common underdogs of our fine country as I have for my entire adult life. . . .  If I choose to attend a nontraditional law school, knowing full well of the imposed limitations now in place by some sort of self-appointed political body that was irrelevant less than 100 years ago, and can make my way in it, who’s place is it to judge what or how I do it?   That’s what attracts me to California’s Bar – giving everyone a chance to pursue their own dreams their own way, but setting the standards of conduct to weed out those who follow the dark side or fails to meet minimum standards of competency. Some will agree with I present, others will not; again, what one chooses to exercise is a personal choice.

Let me first address the red text above, because I believe it's pertinent to my answer below.  You're betting that you can pass the bar and make a life as an attorney.  If you're going to an online school or even most T3s and T4s, statistics show you're wrong.  This fact underscores the response below:

I don't have a problem with people chasing their dreams - as long as they take responsibility for their actions and and pay their debts in a timely manner.  However, when those graduates start using government money to chase rainbows and start asking for a direct bailout (or increasingly use IBR or the other various government bailout programs), I believe that the tax payers that will end up sholdering the rainbow chasers (i.e., burdens on society) have the right to hold those folks accountable for the poor decisions that they made.  If you're going to school with your own funds or on a scholarship then, by all means, go.  If you're chasing rainbows, have little shot at actually becoming an attorney, and want to borrow from the government, then you don't deserve the money.  The government shouldn't dole out money to encourage losing propositions.  Yet, time after time, we give money to those with less than a 25% shot at "making it", we don't question their wisdom, we can make a quick, relatively accurate determination of whether they will be able to pay their debts simply by knowing the school they wish to attend (but we don't), and we allow them to become burdens on society.  As a result, you're increasingly seeing more "basement dwellers" - i.e., those 30 year olds who have made poor decisions and are debt-slaves.  I suspect that you can count on seeing more and more of those as the cost of tuition increases (as a result of an overabundance of federal cashing being doled out without scrutiny), the demand for labor decreases, and as more individuals are repeatedly told that they are special little snowflakes that deserve a chance to chase rainbows.  Our education system is quickly becoming the joke of the world.  It's really as simple as that.

Further, barriers to entry must be erected as lawyers are members of a profession.  As a professional, you will have direct access to client money and will be placed in a position to, essentially, "speak" on behalf of your clients.  Because attorneys are, by nature, in a position to be trusted by their clients, they owe fiduciary duties to their clients.  Thus, a different, arguably stricter, standard of behavior than the comparable tortious duty of care at common law applies to attorney conduct.  As a result, we simply can't afford to let anyone and everyone into the profession.  Not everyone has the capacity to act ethically or competently.  Like bar exams, ABA accreditation standards act as a baseline hurdle to protect the public from students being taught by diploma mills.  Indeed, denial of ABA accreditation is recognition that the education you received does not even meet minimum standards and should not be valued.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: sollicitus on April 24, 2012, 12:34:18 PM
Why "concede?"  That's what I'm calling "... lame, subjective, and unsupported ..."  It only encourages narrow minded people to believe they have some sort of plausible argument.  The other guy's argument shouldn't even be considered as having any sort of merit.

*Is Opie58*
*Thinks he is a "ruthless pitbull in the courtroom" who will never back down*
*Furiously writes 2/3 of reply to Motion for Summary Judment on minor point that should be conceded*
*Wonders why judge just dismissed his personal injury case on summary judgment*

True. A major factor in on campus learning is you learn to clean the mental pallet of tv perpetrated myths and behavior. There are always a few who act crazy in person but they tend to weed themselves out or just be labled psycho and left alone.

Wanting something "bad enough" and actually being qualified and doing it correctly are not even close to the same idea for most people.

Online grads can be equal to ABA but it's on them to prove themselves. They have to go double as much as everyone else and get a good rep out there. Win big cases, kiss hands & shake babies, all that stuff.

It might take a century or it might not happen at all. It's on them and only on them to make whatever happens happen. Not climbing a mountain because it's too big is on the climber not the mountain. Raise yourself to the standard, it will not lower itself to you.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: cerealkiller on April 24, 2012, 12:39:51 PM
If you are easily offended by people looking down on an online degree, avoid any place with ABA grads.
If I choose to attend a nontraditional law school, knowing full well of the imposed limitations now in place by some sort of self-appointed political body that was irrelevant less than 100 years ago, and can make my way in it, who’s place is it to judge what or how I do it? 

The ABA doesn't impose any limitations on you. It's the state legislatures, and, more importantly, employers who impose the limitations. ABA-accreditation gives employers confidence that a prospective employee has received a legal education that meets a minimum standard of thoroughness and quality. Should your imagined right to work as an attorney somehow trump an employer's right to hire whom he sees fit?

Like it or not, ABA-accreditation combined with the U.S. News and World Report rankings provide employers immediate feedback as to the marketplace's perceived quality of the prospective employee's legal education. From there, the employer can then drill down even further and examine grades, extracurricular activities, and so on to arrive at a decision to hire him or not. Was so wrong with that?

There's nothing particularly draconian about the system. Every prospective law student knows or has reason to know the rules of the game. If you choose to sidestep the minimum requirements to play the game and end up watching it from the sidelines, don't cast blame on the ABA.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: sollicitus on April 24, 2012, 12:44:11 PM
If you are easily offended by people looking down on an online degree, avoid any place with ABA grads.
If I choose to attend a nontraditional law school, knowing full well of the imposed limitations now in place by some sort of self-appointed political body that was irrelevant less than 100 years ago, and can make my way in it, who’s place is it to judge what or how I do it? 

The ABA doesn't impose any limitations on you. It's the state legislatures, and more importantly, employers who impose the limitations. ABA-accreditation gives employers confidence that a prospective employee has received a legal education that meets a minimum standard of thoroughness and quality. Should your imagined right to work as an attorney somehow trump an employer's right to hire whom he sees fit?

Like it or not, ABA-accreditation combined with the U.S. News and World Report rankings provide employers immediate feedback as to the marketplace's perceived quality of the prospective employee's legal education. From there, the employer can then drill down even further and examine grades, extracurricular activities, and so on to arrive at a decision to hire him or not. Was so wrong with that?

There's nothing particularly draconian about the system. Every prospective law student knows or has reason to know the rules of the game. If you choose to sidestep the minimum requirements to play the game and end up watching it from the sidelines, don't cast blame on the ABA.

Their argument will of course be that they do meet the requirments (just for their area) and they want it expanded if they prove themselves.
They also will argue that they often chose that path since other paths don't meet their nontraditoinal student requirments.
There is a reason why online attendence (JD and otherwise) is skyrocketing recently. Turn on any TV channel and watch the commercials. Not a single break will occur without an ad for an online college.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: Opie58 on April 24, 2012, 12:55:44 PM
Let me first address the red text above, because I believe it's pertinent to my answer below.  You're betting that you can pass the bar and make a life as an attorney.  If you're going to an online school or even most T3s and T4s, statistics show you're wrong.  This fact underscores the response below:

I don't have a problem with people chasing their dreams - as long as they take responsibility for their actions and and pay their debts in a timely manner.  However, when those graduates start using government money  to chase rainbows and start asking for a direct bailout (or increasingly use IBR or the other various government bailout programs), I believe that the tax payers that will end up sholdering the rainbow chasers (i.e., burdens on society) have the right to hold those folks accountable for the poor decisions that they made.  If you're doing it with your own funds or on a scholarship then, by all means, go.  If you're chasing rainbows and have little shot at actually becoming an attorney, then you don't deserve the money.  The government shouldn't be in a position of doling out money  to encourage losing propositions.  Our education system is quickly becoming the joke of the world.  It's really as simple as that.

Further, barriers to entry must be erected as lawyers are members of a profession.  As a professional, you will have direct access to client money and will be placed in a position to, essentially, "speak" on behalf of your clients.  Because attorneys are, by nature, in a position to be trusted by their clients, they owe fiduciary duties to their clients.  Thus, a different, arguably stricter, standard of behavior than the comparable tortious duty of care at common law applies to attorney conduct.  We simply can't afford to let anyone and everyone into the profession.  Not everyone can act ethically or competently.

And, in those words I shaded red to your response, lies my rub – the Government shouldn't be in the position of handing out money towards higher education – it should be a private, personal endeavor.  Otherwise, “big” Government than justifies their ability to dictate limitations & special rules for positions within our Government promoting exclusionism and elitism which was the WHOLE purpose behind the Revolution and making our Government of the People, not only for the selected few it has progressed to; thus, the people beginning to rise up against those in our Government demanding accountability and restraint.  I agree a person should pay their own way.  If people cannot come up with the funds to pay, oh well.  I paid for my own education by working hard for many years.  But, with the advent of the ABA, law schools have become way over priced forcing people to seek financial assistance, primarily from the Federal government, who can say “Do it our way, or no way;” counter to the principles of our Constitution it purports to uphold – limited government, not entitlement government.  Has progressivism over the past 100 years improved our overall way of life – sure, but at what cost?  A “them vs. us” mentality, greater class division, more people seeking entitlements demanding more taxation against those who have worked hard and prospered, as well as greater and greater national debt.  I can go on and on, but I agree, our education, mainly public, is become a joke – it has gotten worst the more the Federal government tries to control more of it – private continues to prosper – see a connection?  Also, while you are correct with the limitations imposed by the existence of the ABA, I see it duplicitous that now this organization limits, instead of promotes, people into law when, before its existence, the legal profession managed just fine and allowed greater opportunities to all people who sought it.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: sollicitus on April 24, 2012, 01:12:16 PM
what works for a small republic does not work for an empire. Factor in multiple centuries and other changes, things will change. That is why the Supreme Court is assinged to "interpret" the constitution. Think of them as a Pope for a God we know we made up.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: Opie58 on April 24, 2012, 01:23:57 PM
what works for a small republic does not work for an empire. Factor in multiple centuries and other changes, things will change. That is why the Supreme Court is assinged to "interpret" the constitution. Think of them as a Pope for a God we know we made up.

And the Supreme Court has NEVER made a mistake, or changed a ruling??  Doesn't sound like their ABA-only education made them any better than the common joe.

So, what of all the lawyers, who sat in SCOTUS, and those others who prospered elsewhere, before the ABA, that learned law via self-taught, mentored, apprenticeship, etc., that are now presented as icons within our legal system; are they any less of a lawyer?  The only change has been the unquestioned acceptance of the ABA’s standards and their promotion for a brick & mortar school attendance as the only "true" way to learn the law.  Therefore, now, any other means of learning the law is unacceptable, substandard, shunned, and considered less competent, where some say “they must prove themselves,” as if the ABA B&M student is better and more competent, though several are disbarred every year, while a century ago, those means of learning the law was equally accepted across the board – why?  Most SCOTUS Justices, up until this past century, learned law the “unacceptable” way, but now it’s not good enough?
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: sollicitus on April 24, 2012, 01:27:28 PM
Let me first address the red text above, because I believe it's pertinent to my answer below.  You're betting that you can pass the bar and make a life as an attorney.  If you're going to an online school or even most T3s and T4s, statistics show you're wrong.  This fact underscores the response below:

I don't have a problem with people chasing their dreams - as long as they take responsibility for their actions and and pay their debts in a timely manner.  However, when those graduates start using government money  to chase rainbows and start asking for a direct bailout (or increasingly use IBR or the other various government bailout programs), I believe that the tax payers that will end up sholdering the rainbow chasers (i.e., burdens on society) have the right to hold those folks accountable for the poor decisions that they made.  If you're doing it with your own funds or on a scholarship then, by all means, go.  If you're chasing rainbows and have little shot at actually becoming an attorney, then you don't deserve the money.  The government shouldn't be in a position of doling out money  to encourage losing propositions.  Our education system is quickly becoming the joke of the world.  It's really as simple as that.

Further, barriers to entry must be erected as lawyers are members of a profession.  As a professional, you will have direct access to client money and will be placed in a position to, essentially, "speak" on behalf of your clients.  Because attorneys are, by nature, in a position to be trusted by their clients, they owe fiduciary duties to their clients.  Thus, a different, arguably stricter, standard of behavior than the comparable tortious duty of care at common law applies to attorney conduct.  We simply can't afford to let anyone and everyone into the profession.  Not everyone can act ethically or competently.

And, in those words I shaded red to your response, lies my rub – the Government shouldn't be in the position of handing out money towards higher education – it should be a private, personal endeavor.  Otherwise, “big” Government than justifies their ability to dictate limitations & special rules for positions within our Government promoting exclusionism and elitism which was the WHOLE purpose behind the Revolution and making our Government of the People, not only for the selected few it has progressed to; thus, the people beginning to rise up against those in our Government demanding accountability and restraint.  I agree a person should pay their own way.  If people cannot come up with the funds to pay, oh well.  I paid for my own education by working hard for many years.  But, with the advent of the ABA, law schools have become way over priced forcing people to seek financial assistance, primarily from the Federal government, who can say “Do it our way, or no way;” counter to the principles of our Constitution it purports to uphold – limited government, not entitlement government.  Has progressivism over the past 100 years improved our overall way of life – sure, but at what cost?  A “them vs. us” mentality, greater class division, more people seeking entitlements demanding more taxation against those who have worked hard and prospered, as well as greater and greater national debt.  I can go on and on, but I agree, our education, mainly public, is become a joke – it has gotten worst the more the Federal government tries to control more of it – private continues to prosper – see a connection?  Also, while you are correct with the limitations imposed by the existence of the ABA, I see it duplicitous that now this organization limits, instead of promotes, people into law when, before its existence, the legal profession managed just fine and allowed greater opportunities to all people who sought it.

Not true. Regulation is a pain to you but helps (not hurt, helps) the consumer.
Want to blame someone? Blame bad ham. Literally. That is where heavy regulation began. The publishing of "the jungle" showing how horribly tainted and unclean our ham production was created a public outrage and demand for regulation which of course people soon pointed out that they also wanted safe and quality medical care, dental care, and legal represenatation.

The standard is a floor not a ceiling. Treat is as such.

Otherwise every yahoo with an internet search engine nowdays would be a "lawyer" for hire. It was disproportionatly disinfranchise the poor (and by the same token the non white races) who couldn't afford the properly trained attorney or who were uneducated enought to know how to find out the difference.

Regulations are there for a reason. To overcome them you have to prove to the govt regulators (and the public at large) that you meet or exceed the standard. If so, your proper marketing will result in winning your situation.

Above all else remember.....

"Merda taurorum animas conturbit"
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: sollicitus on April 24, 2012, 01:28:40 PM
what works for a small republic does not work for an empire. Factor in multiple centuries and other changes, things will change. That is why the Supreme Court is assinged to "interpret" the constitution. Think of them as a Pope for a God we know we made up.

And the Supreme Court has NEVER made a mistake, or changed a ruling??  Doesn't sound like their ABA-only education made them any better than the common joe.

So, what of all the lawyers, who sat in SCOTUS, and those others who prospered elsewhere, before the ABA, that learned law via self-taught, mentored, apprenticeship, etc., that are now presented as icons within our legal system; are they any less of a lawyer?  The only change has been the unquestioned acceptance of the ABA’s standards and their promotion for a brick & mortar school attendance as the only "true" way to learn the law.  Therefore, now, any other means of learning the law is unacceptable, substandard, shunned, and considered less competent, where some say “they must prove themselves,” as if the ABA B&M student is better and more competent, though several are disbarred every year, while a century ago, those means of learning the law was equally accepted across the board – why?  Most SCOTUS Justices, up until this past century, learned law the “unacceptable” way, but now it’s not good enough?

exactly. Now imagine how F'd up it would be withought the set minimal standard? There you go.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: Opie58 on April 24, 2012, 05:34:23 PM
Or not.  Seems pretty crappy now by those who think they know best, especially from those of the likes of Minority Speaker and her Dem cronies who want to amend the First Amendment.  The same people who say if they had to do it over again, they would write a different Constitution.  Really???

http://www.freespeechforpeople.com/sites/default/files/Peoples%20Rights%20Amendment.pdf

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20120424pelosis_war_on_constitution/srvc=home&position=recent

http://youtu.be/yUBGsJ5-jfI

Scary stuff.

"Merda taurorum animas conturbit" - ditto   ::)
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: legalpractitioner on April 24, 2012, 06:57:54 PM
The states are stupid regulators, they have proven that with the insurance industry.  They do little better with lawyers, California has perhaps the toughest bar, no reciprocity, numerous non ABA schools of dubious quality, and is the only state that initially recognizes online and correspondence degrees. for the bar exam.  DC on the other hand has a tough bar but reciprocity with every other jurisdiction after 5 years practice.  Florida is known for protectionism due to fear retiree lawyers from up north will take away business. Each federal court has its own set of standards varying widely.  It would be interesting to know if  a national mandatory bar would violate the 10th amendment?
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: john4040 on April 25, 2012, 01:59:13 AM
But, with the advent of the ABA, law schools have become way over priced forcing people to seek financial assistance

I really don't think the ABA has much to do with the cost of tuition.  Non-ABA schools are often just as expensive as ABA schools.  I think it has more to do with prospective students being able to get easy money from the government.  A secondary driver of tuition costs is probably the USNWR rankings.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: sollicitus on April 25, 2012, 12:56:00 PM
Or not.  Seems pretty crappy now by those who think they know best, especially from those of the likes of Minority Speaker and her Dem cronies who want to amend the First Amendment.  The same people who say if they had to do it over again, they would write a different Constitution.  Really???

http://www.freespeechforpeople.com/sites/default/files/Peoples%20Rights%20Amendment.pdf

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20120424pelosis_war_on_constitution/srvc=home&position=recent

http://youtu.be/yUBGsJ5-jfI

Scary stuff.

"Merda taurorum animas conturbit" - ditto   ::)

who would you prefer be in charge? Should each court case be decided by live tv vote like american idol? Should anarchy rule?
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: Sandhya on June 06, 2012, 08:08:31 PM
I looked into both options and applied at St. Francis, but I'm not sure if I'll get in.  During the interview, I was informed that their acceptance rate can be as low as one in three.

If I don't get into St. Francis, then I'm planning on waiting a semester and re-applying and then if I still can't make the cut, I'm going to try Taft.  Concord didn't seem worth the premium to be, but I'd be curious to hear if the format at Concord is worth such an expensive tuition rate.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: john4040 on June 07, 2012, 07:32:01 AM
St. Francis... lol.  You've been warned.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: GlenRPierre on June 11, 2012, 11:14:40 PM
Aside from the typical caveats regarding practice limits that come with an online JD, consider what your'e looking for in terms of post-law school experience.  If you're interested in practicing law immediately as a solo practitioner, or even with a law firm, make sure you're getting the skills you need.  From what I understand, even ABA law schools have finally "received the memo" that the case method is worthless and the smart ones are moving towards practical programs.  www.stfrancislaw.com  seems to have a program that is focused on teaching the actual practice of law.  Makes sense to me--after all, law was taught through apprenticeship years ago.

If you're looking for something that's just for knowledge, I suppose taft might be decent, but I would't expect to walk out with an ability to actually practice unless you self-teach (again, a consistent theme on these boards is self-teaching when you're at an online school).
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: john4040 on June 11, 2012, 11:46:15 PM
Aside from the typical caveats regarding practice limits that come with an online JD, consider what your'e looking for in terms of post-law school experience.  If you're interested in practicing law immediately as a solo practitioner, or even with a law firm, make sure you're getting the skills you need.  From what I understand, even ABA law schools have finally "received the memo" that the case method is worthless and the smart ones are moving towards practical programs.  www.stfrancislaw.com  seems to have a program that is focused on teaching the actual practice of law.  Makes sense to me--after all, law was taught through apprenticeship years ago.

If you're looking for something that's just for knowledge, I suppose taft might be decent, but I would't expect to walk out with an ability to actually practice unless you self-teach (again, a consistent theme on these boards is self-teaching when you're at an online school).

It all sounds good and well, but I'm highly skeptical that any school has deemed the case method worthless and abolished the entire system.  What does St. Francis do that other schools don't?  Offering a high number of clinical classes doesn't cut it.
Title: Re: Taft or Concord Law School
Post by: legalpractitioner on July 08, 2012, 07:40:11 PM
Cart before the horse, the bar exams have not changed, so you want a school that teaches for the bar, all the rest is non essential.  No law school can do more than acquaint a student with actual practice.