Why is Cooley Law so despised?

[Changed Name]

Part of the reason to regulate is to ensure some sort of decent quality of life for its practitioners.  Like it or not, a big portion of that simply comes down to money.  The more schools, and subsequent de-valuing of the J.D. (of course, not a proven correlation), in turn can lead poor job prospects.  Poor job prospects often means poor quality of life (again, this is just the way it is;  I'm not arguing for the way it should be).

"Regulating the profession" seems to be kind of a mystery.  It's not clear what it all entails, but I have to feel that part of it should include the welfare of those who will end up practicing.

Is this true? I think many attorneys tend to see themselves as a type of public servant (even in non-PI jobs), since they act as officers of the courts to connect the laypeople with the laws that govern them. So in that sense, I think the regulation of the field is more about ensuring that everyone gets a basic level of representation, rather than ensuring every attorney a basic level of compensation.

Hell, even with jobs that don't purport to have a critical role in the republic, regulation is usually more about protecting the public than protecting the practitioner. Think about some other licensed professions like hairdresser or cab driver. Do we regulate those jobs because we want the public to have some expectation of competence, or do we do it because we think a hairdresser has some sort of inherent right to a high income? I don't think restricting the supply of labor for the purpose of raising profits is legitimate.

I think you make some good points.

I agree that most lawyers probably see themselves as some sort of public servant, but I don't think that's what compels most in this profession.  Indeed, this profession is heavily focused around money and prestige.  The reason I argue that regulation should look out for the practitioners, to some degree, is that if they are not "taken care of" then we are likely to see repercussions, in terms of less lawyers.  Now, to some this may be a good thing.  But I tend to disagree because those who would likely not join the profession would be amongst the best and brightest.  Losing these folk as lawyers would be a detriment to the profession because the study and practice of law is a highly analytic and intellectual pursuit;  the progress of the profession depends a lot on skilled workmen.

Also, I would tend to not compare regulating the law profession on par with the other professions you mentioned.  At the end of the day, we're not going to care too much about if we lose hairdressers and whatnot, because we figure that their spots can easily be replaced.  We give professions, such as medicine and law, a higher level of respect (whether that is earned or not, I don't know;  but I don't think it's hard to see that we do have a certain level of respect for some professions as a whole).  This level of respect comes, in some part, due to the fact that we assume that these professions are not "easy" to get into, or succeed from.  This same level of respect isn't accorded to all other professions. 

[vap]

I kind of want to piggy-back on Jacy's point that more law school graduates devalue the worth of your JD.  And when you're paying a boat-load for that JD, you'd hope it'd mean something.

... because the best reason to regulate the legal profession is to put more money in our pockets.

Part of the reason to regulate is to ensure some sort of decent quality of life for its practitioners.  Like it or not, a big portion of that simply comes down to money.  The more schools, and subsequent de-valuing of the J.D. (of course, not a proven correlation), in turn can lead poor job prospects.  Poor job prospects often means poor quality of life (again, this is just the way it is;  I'm not arguing for the way it should be).

"Regulating the profession" seems to be kind of a mystery.  It's not clear what it all entails, but I have to feel that part of it should include the welfare of those who will end up practicing.

I encourage you to keep an open mind.  This issue will hopefully come up in your professional responsibility class a few years from now.

[Changed Name]

I kind of want to piggy-back on Jacy's point that more law school graduates devalue the worth of your JD.  And when you're paying a boat-load for that JD, you'd hope it'd mean something.

... because the best reason to regulate the legal profession is to put more money in our pockets.

Part of the reason to regulate is to ensure some sort of decent quality of life for its practitioners.  Like it or not, a big portion of that simply comes down to money.  The more schools, and subsequent de-valuing of the J.D. (of course, not a proven correlation), in turn can lead poor job prospects.  Poor job prospects often means poor quality of life (again, this is just the way it is;  I'm not arguing for the way it should be).

"Regulating the profession" seems to be kind of a mystery.  It's not clear what it all entails, but I have to feel that part of it should include the welfare of those who will end up practicing.

I encourage you to keep an open mind.  This issue will hopefully come up in your professional responsibility class a few years from now.

Will do 

For what it's worth, I don't really care about the way ABA operates.  It doesn't seem to have much bearing on me and I'm happy with the decisions I've made from the information that has been available.

[vap]

Part of the reason to regulate is to ensure some sort of decent quality of life for its practitioners.  Like it or not, a big portion of that simply comes down to money.  The more schools, and subsequent de-valuing of the J.D. (of course, not a proven correlation), in turn can lead poor job prospects.  Poor job prospects often means poor quality of life (again, this is just the way it is;  I'm not arguing for the way it should be).

"Regulating the profession" seems to be kind of a mystery.  It's not clear what it all entails, but I have to feel that part of it should include the welfare of those who will end up practicing.

Is this true? I think many attorneys tend to see themselves as a type of public servant (even in non-PI jobs), since they act as officers of the courts to connect the laypeople with the laws that govern them. So in that sense, I think the regulation of the field is more about ensuring that everyone gets a basic level of representation, rather than ensuring every attorney a basic level of compensation.

Hell, even with jobs that don't purport to have a critical role in the republic, regulation is usually more about protecting the public than protecting the practitioner. Think about some other licensed professions like hairdresser or cab driver. Do we regulate those jobs because we want the public to have some expectation of competence, or do we do it because we think a hairdresser has some sort of inherent right to a high income? I don't think restricting the supply of labor for the purpose of raising profits is legitimate.

TITCR.

Preamble to Model Rules of Professional Conduct (http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/preamble.html):

[12] The legal profession's relative autonomy carries with it special responsibilities of self-government. The profession has a responsibility to assure that its regulations are conceived in the public interest and not in furtherance of parochial or self-interested concerns of the bar. Every lawyer is responsible for observance of the Rules of Professional Conduct. A lawyer should also aid in securing their observance by other lawyers. Neglect of these responsibilities compromises the independence of the profession and the public interest which it serves.

[brianwithani]

I have heard two pertinent to this topic bits of wisdom my whole life.  They are, "the cream always rises to the top" and "your education is what you make of it."  If you're good, you will always get a job, eventually.  T4's graduate people who pass the bar because if they didn't they would lose their accreditation.  Statistically, they produce more attorneys who can pass the bar than they flunk out. 

It's unfortunate for the flunk outs but who hasn't learned a $25,000 lesson the hard way?  (i.e. my first marriage...) I guess my point is, some students need the redemption and opportunity that a T4 offers.  Are Cooley's practices ethical?  They seem to be pretty rotten to me.  But somewhere there is a Cooley graduate who just helped an innocent person get aquitted...

[vjm]

I have heard two pertinent to this topic bits of wisdom my whole life.  They are, "the cream always rises to the top" and "your education is what you make of it."  If you're good, you will always get a job, eventually.  T4's graduate people who pass the bar because if they didn't they would lose their accreditation.  Statistically, they produce more attorneys who can pass the bar than they flunk out. 

It's unfortunate for the flunk outs but who hasn't learned a $25,000 lesson the hard way?  (i.e. my first marriage...) I guess my point is, some students need the redemption and opportunity that a T4 offers.  Are Cooley's practices ethical?  They seem to be pretty rotten to me.  But somewhere there is a Cooley graduate who just helped an innocent person get aquitted...

I LOL'd.

[JeNeSaisLaw]

Actually, they don't produce more attorneys that pass the bar.

These numbers from the ABA are not perfect, because the years are different, but it seems they're consistent from year to year. There are 1580 matriculates. After the first year, 533 drop out and 188 transfer. After the second year, 135 drop out. After third year, 31 drop out. That leaves us with 701 people from the matriculating class that graduate, when you factor in transfer-ins.

Of those 701, about 561 passed the bar first time (assuming that the 80% of the 229 graduates who took it in Michigan pass holds across  all jurisdictions, which isn't likely considering the passage rate of the Michigan bar is ~90%). That means that, of the 1580 matriculates, only 35.5% passed the bar the first time.

So no, they produce just as many attorneys as they flunk out, and when you don't give them credit for those that transfer (which they should not get credit for), it's that abysmal 35.5% number.

[brianwithani]

I was speaking of T4's in general.  Actually, I used the stats of the only T4 I applied to which was Jones School of Law at Faulkner University in Montgomery, AL.  Of course Cooley bashing degenerated to T4 bashing and I was making a case for T4's in general.  I did cite Cooley in my last sentence but it could just as likely have been true. 

But to fully dismiss a graduate of Cooley you can't only accept first time bar passers.  It sometimes takes people more than one time to pass the bar.  Even almighty Yale grads don't pass it first time every time. Either way, your point is taken.  I shall rephrase:  Cooley still puts out good lawyers who pass the bar and serve their communities well.   

But I appreciate you doin' all that math to refute my point. 

[jd4me2010]

Just had to pipe in here....T4's exist for a reason - so people like me can go to law school. Now before you all start making jokes, here is my story...

 I am a 35 yr old mother of 4 who went back and finished her BA two years ago. I have a 155 IQ and graduated from high school with a 4.0 then I went to a great college on a full ride scholarship and failed out (I was young and only interested in partying). As a result, I had one horrible GPA. I dropped out with only a year left. When I went back to school (as a much wiser adult), I was able to maintain a 4.0 GPA. However, this was NOT enough to bring my GPA up. My school had me listed as graduating with a 3.0 but thanks to the LSDAS they "calculated" my GPA at a dismal 2.2. Who the hell lets someone into law school with a 2.2 GPA??? You guessed it! Cooley.

 Not only was I accepted, but because of their generous scholarship program I was awarded a 75% scholarship for my LSAT score. Now was Cooley my first choice? Of course not. It's not anyone's. But what Cooley did was offer me a chance. Don't get me wrong, they do a lot of things I don't agree with (like dismissing students for falling below a 2.0 when they have a 2.0 curve for starters!) but I have worked me ass off, am in the top 1/3 of my class and am halfway through lawschool.

You all can disrespect Cooley all you want but here in Michigan, Cooley grads are a force to be reckoned with. Recent bar passage scores were damn close to University of Michigan's and Cooley grads are known throughout the state to be fierce inside and outside the courtroom. If you are going to make it here, you better be tough and be passionate about the law.....you won't surive otherwise.

[NeverTrustKlingons]

As a T3-to-T14 transfer, my problem is that lower-ranking schools are DISHONEST.

I have personally heard from low-tiered admissions representatives (who are salespeople and not JD's like at better schools), that 'school name doesn't matter much unless you want to do something like clerk for the Supreme Court.'

That's a ridiculous proposition, dishonest and entirely misleading.  And it's targeted to a prospective student body, not all of whom do in-depth research on the career prospects of the various tiers before committing themselves.