Thursday, December 27, 2012

Above the Law: Medical Schools Make Reforms While Law Schools Make Excuses

Above the Law
A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law School, Law Suits, Judges and Courts
Medical Schools Make Reforms While Law Schools Make Excuses
Dec 27th 2012, 17:01

One guy went to a professional school that takes the responsibility for training the next generation seriously. The other guy went to law school.

If you talk to legal educators for long enough, you might start to think that they are trying their best. You might start to think that there is no other way they can approach the training of lawyers. You might even start to think that they are more concerned with education then with bilking law students for all they’re worth.

Don’t believe it. Law schools are involved in a straight cash grab, and it turns out the we only need to look towards our nation’s medical schools to see how things look when schools are more concerned with the profession than profits.

It turns out that a very prestigious medical school is looking to trim a year off of the education — because doing so will reduce student debt and encourage young doctors to go into underserved fields….

The New York Times has a great article about a new pilot program at NYU Medical School. The plan is to reduce the number of years it takes to go through med school from four years down to three:

Administrators at N.Y.U. say they can make the change without compromising quality, by eliminating redundancies in their science curriculum, getting students into clinical training more quickly and adding some extra class time in the summer.

Not only, they say, will those doctors be able to hang out their shingles to practice earlier, but they will save a quarter of the cost of medical school — $49,560 a year in tuition and fees at N.Y.U., and even more when room, board, books, supplies and other expenses are added in.

So, despite what you may have heard from your law dean, educators are capable of understanding that an extra year of school COSTS MORE MONEY. They are able to understand BASIC MATH.

Again, if you speak to legal educators as much as I do, the above knowledge might come as a revelation. Law deans have been trained to avoid the basic fact that the third year of law school explodes the cost of the education without conferring any real benefit.

For a case study in this, we just have to look at NYU! At their medical school, they’re experimenting with ways to streamline the education. But what are they doing with their highly respected law school? Remember, this fall, NYU Law basically admitted that the third year of law school was a gigantic waste of time. But did that lead them to a pilot program eliminating the third year? Of course not. Instead, NYU Law “revamped” their 3L curriculum to make it a glorified study abroad program where students nonetheless have to pay the full cost of another year of school.

Where was NYU’s commitment to helping students control their debt when it came to law students?

Of course, the key difference between law and medical school is how they’re regulated. Medical schools are regulated by the American Medical Association, which bothers to care about the future of health care in this country. Law schools are regulated by the American Bar Association, which cares about… ??? Honestly I have no idea what the organizing principle of the ABA is any more. I’m not sure who benefits by propping up an outdated system that is resistant to change that neither protects currently barred attorneys from a flood of young competition, yet makes it cripplingly expensive for that younger generation to become barred in the first place.

The ABA won’t let NYU take away a year of law school. But that doesn’t absolve NYU or any other law school from blame. Law deans could get together and change the ABA from the inside, for the benefit of their students. But law deans aren’t particularly interested in making things better for their students. Which is why nobody could ever write these two paragraphs about a collection of law school deans:

The deans say that getting students out the door more quickly will accomplish several goals. By speeding up production of physicians, they say, it could eventually dampen a looming doctor shortage, although the number of doctors would not increase unless the schools enrolled more students in the future.

The three-year program would also curtail student debt, which now averages $150,000 by graduation, and by doing so, persuade more students to go into shortage areas like pediatrics and internal medicine, rather than more lucrative specialties like dermatology.

Even this basic understanding of how the cost of education leads to what kinds of jobs recent graduates can take escapes most law school deans. Law school deans tell us that the debt is “worth it” without supplying any data on the true value proposition of going to law school. They tell us that a law degree is “versatile” without acknowledging that the cost of the degree severely limits options.

Maybe the people who go to medical school really are just more intelligent.

N.Y.U. and Other Medical Schools Offer Shorter Course in Training, for Less Tuition [New York Times]

Earlier: NYU Law Revamps 3L Year: This Pig's Lipstick Has An International Flair

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Tom & Lorenzo: Doctor Who: The Snowmen

Tom & Lorenzo
Fabulous & Opinionated
Doctor Who: The Snowmen
Dec 27th 2012, 15:42

One of the things that prevented us from ever truly embracing David Tennant’s run as The Doctor (,they wrote, inviting controversy and outrage to follow) was his version’s tendency to get awfully mopey and melodramatic. “Histrionic” is the word we’d use. Generally speaking, we don’t think The Doctor should get too bogged down in his [...]

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Above the Law: Inside Straight: Business Development At Firms Small Versus Large

Above the Law
A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law School, Law Suits, Judges and Courts
Inside Straight: Business Development At Firms Small Versus Large
Dec 27th 2012, 15:17

A decade ago, I sat in the midst of hundreds of lawyers at a firmwide partners meeting. The managing partner explained that most of our revenue came from our 25 largest clients, and we should focus on expanding those representations. He then noted the conflicts problems posed by tiny clients, for whom we did essentially no work. He urged us to get the tiny clients off the books. To illustrate his point, his PowerPoint slide showed the clients to whom we had sent the smallest bills in the previous year. The firm’s smallest client had been billed a total of $3.25.

The managing partner scoffed: “Three and a quarter? Three and a quarter? Can’t we at least be as selective as the neighborhood bar? Maybe we should set a $25 minimum.”

I’ve inhabited law firms both small (for five years) and large (for twenty). Business development efforts at those firms are similar in some respects — “get famous; make contact; get lucky; repeat” — but differ in other ways. I’m thinking today about the ways that business development efforts differ depending on whether you work at a big firm or a small one….

Big firms reject small cases.

Big firms reject those cases for many reasons. At a large firm, there’s a cost to simply clearing conflicts. It’s not a matter (as it is at some small firms) of walking out into the hall and shouting, “Hey! Any of you guys ever do any work for Tristan & Co?”

Rather, you enter “Tristan & Co” into the database, which returns a conflict form lit up like a Christmas tree, and you pester your colleagues around the world for days (or weeks) to pin down precisely what work which partner did that was adverse to which affiliated entity. If a matter will yield only $5K in fees, the cost of the conflict check may exceed the expected value of the case.

Big firms also often reject roles as local counsel. “Local counsel doesn’t call the shots, and we’re not putting our malpractice insurance on the line if we’re not the ultimate decision-makers! If we win the case, we won’t get the credit, because we weren’t really at the helm. We’ll create the same conflict issues as though we were doing the national representation, but we won’t earn 10 percent of the revenue. And, besides that, it’s just insulting. We don’t accept local counsel roles, except for longtime clients for whom we’re doing a great deal of other work, who ask us to play a local counsel role as a favor.”

Big firms also often try to avoid referring cases to other big firms. “We need local counsel in Denver. We don’t have an office there, but lots of big, national firms do. Don’t use ‘em! If we use Bigg & Mediocre as our local counsel in Denver, they might steal away business from us in New York and LA, where we compete head to head. We’re better off picking some small shop in Denver that doesn’t have other offices.”

What does that mean for business development?

Two things.

First, it’s easier to start developing business as a junior lawyer at a small firm. Your small firm may be delighted that you landed a case that generated $25,000 in fees. That ain’t chicken feed, and it shows that you have your eye on business development. If you were working at a large firm, your firm may well have rejected the case before it came in the door, deeming the fish too small to fry. This can make business development a Herculean task for junior lawyers at big firms: The matters the junior lawyers can attract aren’t worth accepting. There’s thus no chance to parlay small representations of new clients into larger representations. And it’s pretty tricky to have your first business-development success consist of being retained to handle a multimillion dollar case or deal.

Second, if you work at a small firm, lawyers at large firms can be a great source of business. They’ll refer small matters to you, use you as local counsel, and otherwise support your perfectly nice small-firm practice. If you work at a large firm, lawyers at other large firms are unlikely to prove as productive a source of new business.

This means that lawyers at large firms must aim their business development effort mainly at in-house folks, whereas lawyers at small firms can benefit from marketing to lawyers at other firms.

Big firms feast on occasional whales; many small firms live on a constant diet of minnows. Neither model is necessarily better than the other, but know yourself: Stick to a small firm if you lean toward two-pound-test line.


Mark Herrmann is the Chief Counsel – Litigation and Global Chief Compliance Officer at Aon, the world's leading provider of risk management services, insurance and reinsurance brokerage, and human capital and management consulting. He is the author of The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law and Inside Straight: Advice About Lawyering, In-House And Out, That Only The Internet Could Provide (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Tom & Lorenzo: Top 15 WORST 2012 Red Carpet Looks: 10 to 6

Tom & Lorenzo
Fabulous & Opinionated
Top 15 WORST 2012 Red Carpet Looks: 10 to 6
Dec 27th 2012, 14:02

It’s all going according to plan, darlings. We put up lists; you guys all scream and pound your fists and generally accuse us of drug and alcohol abuse; we sit back, laugh, and have another (handful of) butter cookie. Lather, rinse repeat. We’re such master manipulators. We should probably get around to taking over the [...]

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Above the Law: Morning Docket: 12.27.12

Above the Law
A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law School, Law Suits, Judges and Courts
Morning Docket: 12.27.12
Dec 27th 2012, 14:15

* Justice Sonia Sotomayor just ruined Hobby Lobby’s new year by refusing to block the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptives mandate. All of the members of the company’s legal team will have to scrapbook and crochet for hours to get over this loss. [Reuters]

* Harvard Law graduate Barack Obama is being feted as CNN’s “Most Intriguing Person of 2012,” but he’s currently trailing in fourth place in the most important year-end poll of all: Above the Law’s Lawyer of the Year competition. Get out there and vote! [CNN]

* Federal district court judges aren’t being confirmed as quickly as they once were, and it’s partly because our president isn’t submitting nominees as quickly as those who came before him. [WSJ Law Blog (sub. req.)]

* But even if the president nominated judges more quickly, he’d continue to face harsh opposition from the NRA, which matters because the gun group has an entire party in its pocket. [Opinionator / New York Times]

* A legal problem and a journalism problem wrapped up in a little pretty bow: David Gregory of NBC’s “Meet the Press” is being investigated for displaying an alleged 30-round magazine on the air. [Washington Post]

* One of New York’s most prestigious private schools agreed to settle the sex abuse suit brought against it by former students. Simpson Thacher partner Phil Culhane must be doing a victory dance. [New York Daily News]

* You got a fast car, and now this case will pay all our bills. Toyota settled a class action suit over unintended acceleration, and it’s touted as one of the largest product-liability settlements in history. [New York Times]

* Ay dios mio! You know that you’re never going to enjoy another vacation when you catch a hotel employee spreading his seed all over your clothes. But what did you expect? It’s Mexico. [Courthouse News Service]

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Above the Law: Non-Sequiturs: 12.26.12

Above the Law
A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law School, Law Suits, Judges and Courts
Non-Sequiturs: 12.26.12
Dec 26th 2012, 22:58

* Let’s be honest, if it wasn’t for 9/11, we’d already be allowed to leave our cellphones on during flights because before 9/11 we weren’t beaten and cowed by the rights abusing airline industry. [The Legal Satyricon]

* “The Child Support Lady” is the lady that helps Dads avoid paying child support by representing fathers. I think I’d prefer the child support lady who helps Dads avoid paying child support by passing out condoms. [Miami Herald]

* Check out his warning label on a doormat. [Overlawyered]

* Christmas isn’t a deadweight economic loss, because sometimes people surprise you. [Daily Beast]

* And now for the obligatory “look how lawyers would ruin Christmas if they could” posts. First, the oldie but goodie. [Tax Prof Blog]

* And now here’s an issue spotter about Santa Claus. [Constitutional Daily]

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Above the Law: Florida: I’m Tired of These Motherf**kin’ Snakes In This Motherf**kin’ State

Above the Law
A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law School, Law Suits, Judges and Courts
Florida: I'm Tired of These Motherf**kin' Snakes In This Motherf**kin' State
Dec 26th 2012, 21:02

This is why Indiana Jones never looked for the Fountain of Youth in the Everglades.

How much would you need to be paid to go into the swamp to hunt snakes?

Florida, the national leader in providing reasons why America can't have nice things, has a bit of a snake problem. For years, Floridians have imported exotic snakes, including giant Burmese Pythons, and then released them into the wild when they got too big for the aquarium.

Seriously, when a massive snake indigenous to an environment half-a-world away becomes too troublesome or dangerous to take care of, many, many people just drop it off on the street.

Unfortunately, these new state citizens take their newfound freedom and pump out over 80 eggs at a time, growing to 17-feet long and eating deer whole.

Congress has proven incapable of forging a solution to the problem, but Florida has got this figured out: Pay rednecks to go after the snakes with machetes!

Rare English Pythons.

The exotic snake population has now fully established itself as a species in the wild with disastrous results for the local ecosystem. Researchers say the snakes have wiped out up to 99% of the small mammals in the area. And while you may not shed a tear for the wood rat, as their prey diminishes, the odds increase that they'll go after humans. Congressional testimony explains that small children have already been killed by these snakes.

In addition to Burmese Pythons, there are other python species that have been imported and dumped into the Everglades. And this is even worse news.

If the two python species mate, they may spawn a hybrid species, as has happened in captivity. And because of a biological phenomenon called hybrid vigor, there’s an off chance the resulting snakes could be hardier, more powerful predators—assuming they’re not sterile, as many hybrids are—USGS’s [Robert] Reed said.

Some Florida Republicans begged their Congressional colleagues to institute a ban on the import and collection of these species. But the rest of the Republicans on the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs killed the bill earlier this month.

Freedom! (via ohhelloghost)

The subcommittee was lobbied by the United States Association of Reptile Keepers (USARK), arguing that there's no reason to believe a ban would stop "all" snake attacks and therefore no reason to even try. They also denied that snakes were even responsible for the decline in wild mammals.

Rep. Steve Southerland (also of Florida… but nowhere near the Everglades) declared the bill, "open season on business. It's open season on enterprise, on freedom." Does this political response sound familiar?

The bill would have codified an administrative ban that the Interior Department put in place at the beginning of 2012 and add a few additional species. In addition to lobbying to kill this bill, the USARK is mounting a legal attack on the Interior Department’s ban.

Or… maybe not. In the “Herp community,” which is seriously what snake lovers decided to call themselves, USARK is getting some resistance for collecting millions in cash and threatening, but never filing, lawsuits. Sadly I haven’t been able to identify any of the “six attorneys” described in the post linked above. But it looks like there’s some discord in the land of herpetophilia.

But a ban only stops the growth of the problem and Florida needs to do something about the snakes on the ground now. The state is woefully short on personnel to make a dent in the snake population. So they decided to harness their natural abundance of rednecks:

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has announced the 2013 Python Challenge beginning in January.

“We are hoping to gauge from the python challenge the effectiveness of using an incentive-based model as a tool to address this problem,” says Florida Wildlife Commission spokeswoman Carli Segelson.

A grand prize of $1,500 will be awarded to the person who kills the most pythons, and $1,000 will go to the person who bags the longest one. According to the rules, road kill will not be eligible.

Participants will pay a $25 registration fee and complete an online training course. The training focuses on safety while hunting pythons.

It’s basically Whacking Day in Florida. While these species are constrictors and not venomous, it would take a lot more than the chance of getting $1,500 to get me to grab my machete and go after a snake capable of devouring a deer whole. Yes, I said “machete” because:

“We want to make sure this is done in a humane way,” Segelson said. The competition’s website lists several ways to kill a python “in a humane manner that results in immediate loss of consciousness and destruction of the brain.”

It suggests shooting the snake in the head with a firearm or decapitating it with a machete.

So a bunch of gun and sword-wielding snake hunters are going to start flooding into the swamp trying to cash in. Congrats, Florida. You found a way to add another of my biggest fears to the Everglades.


Joe Patrice is the author of Recess Appointment, a blog about political rhetoric, and he'll be dropping in occasionally to write about the intersection of law and politics. To answer the question that you're probably about to ask, he got his J.D. at NYU and spent ten years working at a Biglaw firm and a white-collar defense boutique. His favorite word is sesquipedalian.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Blog Archive