Adjunct Law Prof Blog

Editor: Mitchell H. Rubinstein
New York Law School

Friday, January 6, 2017

Adjunct Savings Are Often Not Reinvested In Faculty Development

Unless you have been living under a bus, it is apparent that adjuncts are being used more and more by colleges as well as by law schools. Adjuncts get paid a fraction-a very small fraction of what the full-timers get, generally have no benefits and almost always are not on a tenure track. 

A new survey looked into what colleges do with this savings. One would have hoped that these monies went into supporting the FT faculty or faculty development. Unfortunately, the study suggests that adjunct savings are often utilized to reduce institution costs. An Insider Higher Education article concerning this issue is available here. As the article states:

  • Private four-year colleges that use large proportions of non-tenure-track faculty members spend 37 percent less on full-time faculty members of all kinds than do similar institutions with small shares of non-tenure-track faculty members. But looking at spending on all categories of full-time employees, these institutions are spending only 19 percent less than those with small shares of non-tenure-track faculty members. So more spending seems possible on the administrative side of the house.
  • The same is true for public four-year colleges, although the spending gaps are 24 percent and 14 percent, respectively.
  • Public four-year colleges are using the savings in instructional costs from relying on adjuncts to increase spending on other areas -- namely maintenance, administrative and student-services staff. Most of this spending is in recruiting, admissions, counseling, student organizations and athletics.
  • Community colleges and private four-year colleges also reduced instructional costs, but they didn’t add to expenses elsewhere, so costs do not actually shift due to increasing reliance on adjuncts.

The above findings come from one of the reports, "The Relationship Between Part-Time and Contingent Faculty and Institutional Spending."

The other report -- "The Shifting Academic Workforce: Where Are the Contingent Faculty?" -- provides data on the pervasive use of adjuncts.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

January 6, 2017 in Adjunct Information in General, College Professors, Colleges | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, January 3, 2017

Sexual Harassment of Men By Women!

Sexual Harassment of Men, by Woman is on the rise. The January 3, 2016 Detroit Free Press, outlines some statistics, here. As the article states:

                            According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the percentage of sexual harassment                             complaints filed by men has more than doubled over the last 25 years, from 8% in 1990 to 17% in 2015.  That                             year, 1,165 men complained about sexual harassment, compared to 5,656 women.

                            Although the number of men filing claims has leveled off over the past five years, an average of 1,200 men claim                              sexual  harassment every year in American workplaces. Legal experts believe the number could be higher                             because there's still a stigma attached to men complaining about women's sexual advances.

                            "People are surprised that men would complain about this, and that could be a mistake," said Ernest Haffner, an                             EEOC attorney  in Washington, D.C., who tracks harassment in the workplace. "Employers should take                             harassment seriously, regardless of whether it's a man or a woman. They all need to be treated the same."

The law, of course, treats sexual harassment of men the same as for woman. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989); Baskerville v. Culligan Int'l, 50 F. 3d 428 (7th Cir. 1995).


Mitchell Rubinstein


January 3, 2017 in Employment Discrimination, Interesting Cases, News | Permalink | Comments (1)

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Book Review: Farnsworth's Restitution

This summer, South Texas Law Review published my review of Ward Farnsworth's "Restitution: Civil Liability for Unjust Enrichment."  Earlier this month, I posted that review on SSRN.  I really enjoy teaching restitution in my class and this book is a must-have for practitioners looking to improve or develop understanding in this often overlooked area. 

For those interested, the link to the review is here.

Craig Estlinbaum

December 20, 2016 in Book Reviews, Books | Permalink | Comments (1)

Intentional Misconduct Disqualifies a Nurse From Obtaining Unemployment Benefits

In New York and several other states, employees who commit misconduct are not entitled to unemployment insurance. But, what is misconduct? The closer the act comes to an intentional action, as opposed to a negligent action,  the more likely it will be found to constitute disqualifying misconduct. Matter of Trunzo v. Commissioner of Labor, ____A.D. 3d____(3rd Dep't. Dec. 15, 2016), is illustrative of this concept. As the court stated:

"An employee's violation of an employer's reasonable policy, which has a detrimental effect on the employer's interest, has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct" (Matter of Sutton [Albany Med. Ctr.—Commissioner of Labor], 84 AD3d 1621, 1622 [2011] [citations omitted]). Here, claimant received an employee handbook and was aware of the employer's policy that a physician's order is required for any medication or therapeutic agent placed in a mediset. Claimant knew that the purpose of the policy was to keep the physician informed of any substances being combined with the patient's prescribed medications in order to address any potential harmful interactions. To the extent that claimant asserts that her conduct was unintentional as she just forgot to obtain a physician's order and that such conduct amounted to mere negligence, we note that "[w]hether a claimant's actions rise to the level of [*2]disqualifying misconduct is a factual issue for the Board to resolve" (Matter of Muniz [Mitarotonda Servs., Inc.— Commissioner of Labor], 140 AD3d 1426, 1427 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Arroyo [Dry Harbor Nursing Home—Hartnett], 145 AD2d 886, 887 [1988]). Under the circumstances here, where claimant's conduct took place over a period from November 2014 to April 2015, substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct and its decision will not be disturbed (see Matter of Strang [Memory Gardens, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor], 112 AD3d 1254, 1255 [2013]; Matter of Farnsworth [Ellis Hosp.—Commissioner of Labor], 108 AD3d 1008, 1009 [2013]; Matter of Meagher [Commissioner of Labor], 89 AD3d 1269, 1269 [2011]), notwithstanding the fact that claimant did not receive any prior warnings.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

December 20, 2016 in Employment Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, December 19, 2016

Find My Phone

AndroidDutch filmmaker Anthony Van Der Meer has recently posted his short documentary, "Find My Phone," on You Tube (and Vimeo).

In this 22-minute film, Van Der Meer tracks the movements of a person who stole (or is suspected of stealing) his android phone.  Only Van Der Meer's phone was no ordinary phone stolen under ordinary circumstances.  Before the thief stole the phone, Van Der Meer installed a tracking app (Cerberus) into the phone's system memory.   This app was installed in a manner such that it could not be deleted by resetting the phone or updating the operating system (the film explains how).  This embedded app allowed Van Der Meer to track the phone's location, access its contents and operate it remotely.  Van Der Meer even took a photograph of the user, presumable without the user even knowing.

Next, Van Der Meer purposefully let his phone get stolen (it took four days but eventually, it was stolen).  He then tracked the thief through the app embedded into the phone, learning a surprising amount of information about him.  Van Der Meer received information about when the SIM card was replaced,  tracked the phone's daily movements, took photos and videos remotely, identified the thief's phone and text contacts, read texts, listened in on his private conversations, and purchased updated call credits for the phone.  Van Der Meer is shown doing all these things in the film.

I highly recommend this short film to any lawyer interested in how our digital devices can be used or misused to track and document our whereabouts and activities and to reveal our secret lives and documents.  I am not well-versed enough in current technologies or privacy law generally to comment about the film beyond saying I found it both highly entertaining and eye-opening.  I have seen attorneys call up client documents on their phones and tablets in the courtroom and of course, e-filing has become all the rage.  How secure are these client documents, such as proprietary files or trade secrets?  How secure are sensitive court filings such as adoption records or trade secrets filed in camera?  What about other e-filed information such as tax returns?  It does not seem enough to me to incorporate these devices into practice without considering -- and paying for -- the security tools, training and protocols necessary to keep private matters private.

This film will make you think twice about the personal and business privacy issues related to your phone.

Craig Estlinbaum

December 19, 2016 in Ethics, Film, Technology | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

The American Dream

An interesting Op Ed. in the December 8, 2016 NY Times, here attempts to quantify a phrase we always here-"The American Dream."

So what is the American Dream? According to this author, it is to have a better standard of living than your parents. The article is full of economic analysis and includes a chart showing that for someone born in 1980 they only have a 50% chance of making more than their parents. As the article states:

                    The resulting research is among the most eye-opening economics work in recent years. You’ve probably                     heard some of the findings even if  you don’t realize it. They have shown that the odds of escaping poverty                     vary widely by region, for instance, an insight that has influenced federal housing policy.

                    After the research began appearing, I mentioned to Chetty, a Stanford professor, and his colleagues that I                     thought they had a chance to do something no one yet had: create an index of the American dream. It took                     them months of work, using old Census data to estimate long-ago decades, but they have done it. They’ve                     constructed a data set that shows the percentage of American children who earn more money — and                     less money — than their parents earned at the same age.

                    The index is deeply alarming. It’s a portrait of an economy that disappoints a huge number of people who                     have heard that they live in a country where life gets better, only to experience something quite different.

                    Their frustration helps explain not only this year’s disturbing presidential campaign but also Americans’                     growing distrust of nearly every major societal institution, including the federal government, corporate                     America, labor unions, the news media and organized religion.

                    Yet the data also helps point the way to some promising solutions.

I am not a fan of economic statistical analysis, but this article makes an interesting read. Frankly, I do not see how the American Dream can be quantified.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein 


December 13, 2016 in Information, News | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, December 10, 2016

Columbia University Grad Students Form Union

No surprises here. After the NLRB ruled that graduate students were employees, Columbia University students voted by a margin of more than 2-1  in favor of unionization. here

Of course, within 2 or 3 years it is very likely that the "Trump Board" will reverse Columbia University and return to the holding in Brown University (that students are not employees). 

Welcome to politics as usual at the Labor Board. My students are all very familar with political influence in  NLRB cases. This is just another illustration of why elections matter.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

December 10, 2016 in News, NLRB, Unions | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, December 9, 2016

Lander on Adjunct Law Professors

David Lander (Saint Louis) is a guest blogger at Prawf Blawg this month.  So far, Lander has two posts that may interest adjunct professors of law or persons interested in law school related commentary.  They are:

Regarding the first post, I agree with commenters who find it unlikely that adjuncts with full-time jobs would participate on curriculum committees or other law school committee work.  As for the suggestion adjuncts participate in faculty presentations, an invitation might be appreciated, but participation would likely be catch-as-catch-can.

Regarding the second post, I expect the only reason law schools have not already frozen tenured hires is that the ABA standards require law schools to maintain the full-time faculty they do is that a school that falls the ABA requirement risks a review.  This alone is sufficient reason for law schools to reject the path undergraduate institutions have charted.

The two posts also raise the question whether blog post titles should be capitalized or not, because to be honest, I don't know (or know that it even matters).

I'm looking forward to hearing more from Professor Lander this month.

Craig Estlinbaum


December 9, 2016 in Adjunct Information in General, Blogs, Faculty, Law Professors, Law Schools | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, December 5, 2016

2d Circuit Holds That Employees Have Right To Union Representative Before Consenting To Drug Test

Although unreported, Manhatten Beer v. NLRB, ____F.3d____(2d Cir. Nov. 16, 2016), may turn out to be a significant decision concerning Weingarten rights. With very little analysis, the court stated:

Here, the Board reasonably construed the NLRA, in light of relevant judicial and administrative precedent, in determining that Diaz had the right to the physical presence of a union representative before consenting to take a drug test in the context of an investigation that he reasonably believed would result in discipline. See NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251, 260, 262 (1975). Therefore, we uphold the Board’s conclusion that Manhattan Beer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA. In addition, we uphold the Board’s award of the make-whole remedy of reinstatement and backpay. Such relief is available when there is “a sufficient nexus between the unfair labor practice committed (denial of representation at an investigatory interview) and the reason for the discharge.” Taracorp Indus., 273 N.L.R.B. 221, 223 (1984); see also 29 U.S.C. § 160(c). Here, the Board reasonably determined that Manhattan Beer’s discharge of Diaz resulted from Diaz’s assertion of his Weingarten rights. See Ralphs Grocery Co., 361 NLRB No. 9 (2014); Int’l Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union v. Quality Mfg. Co., 420 U.S. 276, 280 (1975). In particular, Manhattan Beer’s documentation supporting Diaz’s termination stated that Diaz was terminated because he “[r]efused to go for drug testing under the reasonable suspicion of substance abuse.” J.A. 264. Consequently, we uphold the Board’s conclusion that Diaz was entitled to reinstatement and backpay.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein


December 5, 2016 in Labor Law, NLRB | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Excessive Absenteeism Disqualifies Individual For Unemployment

Matter of Mead v. Commissioner of Labor, ___A.D.3d___(3d Dep't. Nov. 21, 2016) is an interesting case. The case holds that an individual who is excessively absent can be disqualified for unemployment, reasoning:

        Excessive absenteeism, which continues despite repeated warnings, has been held to constitute misconduct disqualifying a         claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see Matter of Berkeley [Commissioner of Labor], 94 AD3d 1328,         1328-1329 [2012]; Matter of Seabrook [Commissioner of Labor], 45 AD3d 1165, 1165-1166 [2007]). Here, it is undisputed         that claimant was continually absent from work even after she was warned that further absences would result in disciplinary         action, including discharge. Although claimant [*2]maintains that she did not realize that the last warning was her final one,         this does not excuse her behavior under the circumstances presented.

I believe there is also case law finding no misconduct, for unemployment purposes, when a person is excessively absent through no fault of his own, ie because of medical issues.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein


November 22, 2016 in Employment Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Education Secretary Calls on States to Abolish Corporal Punishment in Schools

Corporal punishment, believe it or not, is still legal in 22 states. Corporal punishment involves hitting students for the purpose of punishment. This practice was upheld by the Supreme Court in the early 1980s.  Now, Eduation Secretary King is calling on those states where corporal punishment is still practiced, to abolish it. See here 

Law review commentary on this topic would be most welcome. 

Mitchell H. Rubinstein


November 22, 2016 in Education Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Breaking News! Court Enjoins Obama Executive Order Requiring Disclosure of Labor Law Violations

On July 31, 2014, President Obama issued Executive Order 13673 which requires federal contractors to disclose labor law and employment discrimination violations. This Executive Order also precludes certain contractors from entering into predispute arbitration agreements concerning employment discrimination claims. The Office of Federal Procurement and the Department of Labor in turn issued regulations which were enjoined in Associated Builders and Contractors v. Rung, ___F.Supp. 2d___, 1:16-CV-425 (E.D. Tx. Oct. 24, 2016),  Download ABC PI 10-14-16 This disclosure could result in the contractors being debarred from federal contracts. 

In a lengthly decision, the court preliminary enjoined these regulations as compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment and because they conflicted with Congressional statutory mandates which specified how labor law violations needed to be addressed. The court reasoned in part:

                                Finally, even if federal agencies could properly disqualify government contractors based
                                upon final administrative decisions, arbitration awards, and court orders enforcing one of the
                                fourteen labor laws at issue, the Executive Order and FAR Rule should not be allowed to go into
                                effect because they extend their reach far beyond those limited circumstances. The Order and Rule
                                appear to conflict directly with every one of the labor laws they purport to invoke by permitting
                                disqualification based solely upon “administrative merits determinations” that are nothing more
                                than allegations of fault asserted by agency employees and do not constitute final agency findings
                                of any violation at all. As noted above in the Findings of Fact, agency employees who are
                                assigned to administer these labor laws issue thousands of complaints, cause findings, wage
                                notices, and citations each year, many of which are dismissed or significantly reduced after they
                                are contested, often after lengthy proceedings. There is no statutory basis to treat these
                                “administrative merits determinations” as final and binding while they are still being contested or
                                when they are settled without admission of fault. Thus, it appears to be a denial of fundamental
                                statutory and constitutional rights for the Executive Order and FAR Rule to so act.

Labor laws in this country have been widely criticized for being ineffective. This is an important case because it concerns whether it could regulate who it contracts with. This decision will surely be appealed. Law review commentary on this important topic would be most welcome.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

October 25, 2016 in Discrimination Law, Labor Law, Law Review Ideas, Legislation, Litigation, NLRB | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, October 21, 2016

Univ of Dayton Faculty Positions in Academic Success Program

The University of Dayton School of Law is hiring two full-time faculty in our Academic Success Program.  The position announcement is  by clicking  Download Dayton Law Academic Success Positions
Mitchell H. Rubinstein
Hat Tip:
Prof. Susan C. Wawrose
Director, Leadership Honors Program &
Professor of Lawyering Skills
University of Dayton School of Law

October 21, 2016 in Law Schools, Lawyer Employment | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

TV Producers Are Employees

I bring Peacock Productions, 364 NLRB No. 104 (Aug. 26, 2016), to your attention because the NLRB did a nice job of summarizing the applicable supervisory test. The Board held that the employer did not meet its burden of  establishing that certain NBC producers were exempt from the NLRA as supervisors, reasoning:

Section 2(11) defines a supervisor as any individual having the authority, in the interest of the employer, to (among other functions) hire, assign, or responsibly direct employees, so long as the individual exercises independent judgment in doing so. The burden of establishing supervisory status lies with the party asserting it. NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, 532 U.S. 706, 711–712 (2001). Conclusory evidence, in the absence of specific examples of the exercise of supervisory authority, does not satisfy that burden. See, e.g., Lynwood Manor, 350 NLRB 489, 490–491 (2007); Golden Crest Healthcare Center, 348 NLRB 727, 731 (2006). The party asserting supervisory status must show that the individuals in question have the authority to engage in at least one of the supervisory functions set forth in Section 2(11), that their exercise of that authority is not simply routine or clerical but requires the use of independent judgment, and that their authority is exercised in the interest of the employer. Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 NLRB 686, 687 (2006).6 Supervisory status is not proven where the record evidence “is in conflict or otherwise inconclusive.” Republican Co., 361 NLRB No. 15, slip op. at 5 (2014) (citing Phelps Community Medical Center, 295 NLRB 486, 490 (1989)).

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

October 18, 2016 in NLRB | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Supremes Grant Cert In Case That Has Implications For Summary Judgement Motions In Discrim Cases

The Supremes recently granted cert in  Zigler v. Turkmen, which involves pleading discriminatory intent. Though not an employment law case, intent and pleading issues are an important issue in employment discrimination cases-particularly in the summary judgement stage after Twombly and Iqbal. From Scotusblog, via Workplace Prof Blog, the issue in the case includes:

"whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that Respondents' Fourth Amended Complaint met the pleading requirements of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, and related cases, because that complaint relied on allegations of hypothetical possibilities, conclusional assumptions, and unsupported insinuations of discriminatory intent that, at best, are merely consistent with Petitioner Ziglar's liability, but fall short of stating plausible claims."

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Hat Tip:   Workplace Prof Blog

October 12, 2016 in Discrimination Law, Employment Discrimination, Employment Law, Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (1)

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

NLRB Finds That Security Instructors Are Not Managerial Employees

I bring Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp., 364 NLRB No. 111 (Aug. 26, 2016), to your attention because the Board does a nice job in summarizing the criteria for an individual to be excluded from the protection of the Act because he or she is a managerial employee. As the Board explained:

          “Managerial employees are defined as those who formulate and effectuate high-level employer policies or ‘who have discretion in the performance of their jobs independent of their employer's established policy.’” The Republican Co., 361 NLRB No. 15, slip op. at 3 (2014) (quoting General Dynamics Corp., 213 NLRB 851, 857 (1974)); see generally NLRB v. Yeshiva University, 444 U.S. 672, 682 (1980). “Although the Board has no firm criteria for determining managerial status, an employee will not ordinarily be excluded as managerial unless he represents management interests by taking or recommending discretionary actions that effectively control or implement employer policy.” The Republican Co., supra, slip op. at 3–4. The party asserting managerial status bears the burden of proof. See id., slip op. at 4. The fact that employees train or instruct other employees does not, in itself, make them managerial employees. To the contrary, the Board has found that employees who train or instruct other employees are not managerial employees if they do not exercise sufficient independent discretion or judgment in carrying out those duties.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

October 11, 2016 in NLRB | Permalink | Comments (0)

Supremes Grant Cert In Major Special Education Case Which Will Define The Applicable Standard

The U.S. Supreme Court granted cert in a case about the level of education benefit a child must receive for a school district to have provided an appropriate level of service under the IDEA.

The case, Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1 (No. 15-827), raises an important question that has divided federal appeals courts: What level of educational benefit must a child receive under his or her individualized education program, or IEP, to satisfy the demands of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act? A copy of the United States amicus brief is available here.

Parents of course want their child to have the most appropriate level of benefits. But, for years the standard has been that the services must provide some educational benefit. The Supremes will now define what that means.


Mitchell H. Rubinstein


October 11, 2016 in Education Law, Special Education Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Supremes About To Decide Major IDEA Case Involving Use of Service Dogs In School

The issue in  (Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools) is whether a disabled child’s family must first try to work out with school officials a dispute over the assistance their child needs, before the parents may sue for money damages under federal anti-discrimination law.  The dispute in the case involves a claim by a disabled girl’s family that the school would not allow her to bring a service dog to help her during her classes. 

Law review commentary on the interplay between the IDEA and the ADA as well as exhaustion of administrative remedies would be most welcome.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

October 11, 2016 in Education Law, Law Review Ideas, Special Education Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, August 4, 2016

Fired for Being "Too Cute" Does Not State Cause of Action

Sometimes you just cannot make these cases up. After a female  massage therapist was fired by the male owner for being "too cute, " she sued for sex discrimination. Justice Sholom Hagler, a New York lower court judge who I have appeared before, dismissed her case and concluded that under NYS and NYC law, a cause of action was not stated because appearance based discrimination is not gender based and the sex discrimination statutes only protect gender based discrimination.

Not so fast. While the Judge did cite to the majority of authority which supports this fine line distinction, there is also some contrary authority which the Judge did not cite. Most importantly, it seems to me that there is a type of reverse Price Waterhouse sexual sterotype argument.

In Price Waterhouse, it was unlawful to not promote a woman to partnership because she did not act like a woman.  She was simply too macho. Shouldn't the opposite be true? A woman should not be able to be fired for being too pretty. Seems to me this is classic sex sterotyping. It should be unlawful under Title VII and it certainly should be unlawful under NYC law which is required to be broadly interpreted.

Unfortunately, the Judge did not address this issue and I hope this case is appealed. There have been several law review articles written on this topic and additional scholarly writing would be most welcome.

Note, the court also held that a cause of action for defamation was stated. I am not sure of that holding either, but I have not focused on it.

This case got a lot of press when it came out in May, but I just saw it now.  And yes guys, if  you do an internet search, you can find a picture of the plaintiff.

Edwards v. Nicolai, NYLJ May 23, 2016, Index No. 160830/2013 (N.Y. Co. 2016).

Mitchell Rubinstein




August 4, 2016 in Discrimination Law, Interesting Cases, Law Review Ideas | Permalink | Comments (4)

Saturday, June 18, 2016

So You Want To Be A Lawyer

An Expensive Law Degree, No Where To Use It is a must read June 17, 2016 NY Times article. In it, the author describes the difficulty that many law students from non-ivy league schools face. Some graduate with 200k in debt and no job. Worse yet, because of declining enrollment, some schools have lowered their admission standards which has translated to lower bar exam passage rates. As the article states:

As of this April, fewer than 70 percent of Valparaiso law school graduates from the previous spring were employed and fewer than half were in jobs that required a law license. Only three out of 131 graduates worked in large firms, which tend to pay more generous salaries.

“People are not being helped by going to these schools,” Kyle McEntee, executive director of the advocacy group Law School Transparency, said of Valparaiso and other low-tier law schools. “The debt is really high, bar passage rates are horrendous, employment is horrendous.”

Even as employment prospects have dimmed, however, law school student debt has ballooned, rising from about $95,000 among borrowers at the average school in 2010 to about $112,000 in 2014, according to Mr. McEntee’s group.

Such is the atavistic rage among those who went to law school seeking the upper-middle-class status and security often enjoyed by earlier generations, only to find themselves on a financial treadmill and convinced their schools misled them, that there is now a whole genre of online writing devoted specifically to channeling it: “scamblogging.”

Now of course, these grim statistics do not apply to everyone. Plenty of law students wind up in good jobs. If you want to be a lawyer, you still have to go to law school. My only point is for those who chose to go to law school, go with your eyes wide open.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein


June 18, 2016 in Law Schools, Law Schools, News, Law Students, Lawyer Employment, Lawyers | Permalink | Comments (3)