Tuesday, May 31, 2011

The Oprah Effect: It Wasn't Joseph Rakofsky's Fault

For those that remember The Oprah Winfrey Show in the beginning, before the book club, and before the giveaways, it's popularity was based on a concept of nothing being your fault. You weren't fat because you ate too much, you were fat because your mother hated you. You didn't have an issue with your kid because of your kid's behavior, it was because of something that happened to you 35 years ago. Nothing in your life that happened was your fault, blame could be squarely be placed on someone or something else, in front of an applauding audience. Oprah made many happy with themselves by the notion that "it's not your fault.

Joseph Rakofsky took on a murder case in the infancy of his legal career, and the results were not good (unless you ask him). A mistrial was granted, and the judge, and a juror had their say.

After many wrote on the issue, it was only a matter of time before someone, J-Dog is his name, presented the Oprah Effect, placing blame on society, law school specifically:

The system is completely broken. It cannot filter out people like Rakofsky; instead it allows them to flow through by the thousands and onto an unsuspecting marketplace. It has no training safeguards to ensure that people handling murder cases can actually handle murder cases. The more hubris-filled unemployed attorneys will do exactly what Rakofsky did; his story made the rounds, others' do not. But he is by no means unique. He is exactly what happens when you license type A personalities to do things before they've actually shown they can do it.

Now to be fair, J-Dog isn't kind to young Rakofsky, but he tempers the criticism with justification:

Is Joseph Rakofsky an idiot? Absolutely. Let us count the ways.

But he's also a symptom of one of the fundamental problems of attorney oversupply. Back in December, I pointed out that having a large mass of desperate unemployed attorneys can put ethical obligations into jeopardy in the context of foreclosure mills. There, attorneys looking for a job - any job - would have an incentive to sacrifice morals to bring in a paycheck.

Blogger and criminal defense lawyer Mark Bennett responded comparing Rakofsky to another writers description of a lawyer "Francis:"

Maybe Rakofsky was doing what he was trained to do, but somehow there are lawyers like “Francis” of Rakofsky’s generation who don’t do what Rakofsky did (by which I mean “marketing himself deceptively, including paying Yodle to do his deceptive advertising for him,” rather than “taking on a case that he was not competent to handle without adult supervision”) and succeed nevertheless. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

J-Dog, chimed in,, making sure to clarify he doesn't support Rakofsky's conduct, but can explain:

But morality is only completely black and white to fools. In judging his actions, I think it would be folly to ignore the system that bred him and pin the problem sole on one individual’s failings. To spare you my hour-long lecture, we currently have a legal education system that licenses 12,000 extra attorneys each year than the market demands. These recent graduates are generally devoid of practical legal knowledge, up to their hairline in non-dischargable debt, and carrying a degree that limits their job prospects.

In such situations (and the current one isn’t merely recessionary), the temptation to behave unethically rises dramatically. A starving man is more likely to steal, even if stealing is wrong. Many in the current generation see puffery as the only way to stand out in a very crowded field. They’ve been bred to put everything imaginable on their resume, and judging my some linkedin profiles I’ve seen recently, I have absolutely no doubt it will continue into the future.

The commenter makes some points. Yes, we continue to produce a great number of lawyers, above the demand by the coveted BigLaw, and even government jobs. To those that knee-jerk respond "there's too many lawyers," maybe, but in truth there are too many shitty lawyers, too many that hate the profession, their clients, and never wanted to be lawyers in the first place. Are those that care about their future in the profession (read: future in the profession) so willing to puff (read: lie) and take on matters in which they have no competence just for a little publicity and name recognition?

Joseph Rakofsky got publicity and name recognition.

There is no question that the crowded field of new lawyers has caused some bad behavior, thousands of law grads clamoring for clients, trying it on their own without a stitch of knowledge of how the law or practice works. But let's not make it OK, and let's not ignore the ethical, hard working, young lawyers trying to make it in this economy.

That's really the problem, that we make it OK. While the commenter goes to great lengths to say he doesn't think it's OK, there's plenty reading that comment who want to stand up and applaud.

With Oprah, America was taught not to look in the mirror, and plenty of people are happy to live that way.

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.Share/Save/Bookmark

Thursday, May 26, 2011

The Heat Is On

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.Share/Save/Bookmark

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Meet Richard Borzouye, of Hartt Borzouye? Joseph Rakofsky's Lawyer

Now that the internet has been sued by Joseph Rakofsky, there is no better time to meet the man that filed what purports to be a lawsuit on his behalf for defamation.

Meet Richard Borzouye of Hartt Borzouye, I think. I'm not sure. Read on.

Mark Bennett already compiled some fascinating information on Mr. Rakofsky's lawyer, including that Rakofsky lists him as a member of his law firm.

Borzouye has his own firm, with a website that says he has "New York & Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys," but under the attorneys section of his website, well, I don't think "Coming Soon" is a member of the Bar.

Here's some more:

According to his Facebook page, Borzouye attended Thoams M. Cooley Law School. I think that's Thomas Cooley, but I know they don't teach spelling in law school. He graduated in 2001, and was admitted to the Bar in 2004.

According to his LinkedIn profile, Borzouye is and has been a partner at Hartt Borzouye since 2004 where he is a Criminal Defense Attorney and Civil Litigator. I'm not sure that's correct though, as you'll see below. Hartt Borzouye didn't exist in 2004. He is also a White Collar Criminal Defense Attorney/Litigator at the Borzouye Law Firm, P.C. Who says you can't be in two places at one time?

Borzouye also enjoys the endorsement on Avvo of his new partner. That endorsement coming from James Hartt. You wouldn't know from his Avvo profile that James Hartt is his partner, because on that profile, he's Borzouye Law Firm.

According to the official Hartt Borzouye twitter page: Hartt & Borzouye, PC will be a boutique litigation law firm with a focus on employment and Qui Tam Whistleblower litigation as well as criminal defense.

I don't know when this will happen. But it clearly - will - happen. I couldn't find a website for Hartt Borzouye. Maybe it's in the works.

I know this didn't happen - according to this website, Hartt Borzouye, P.C. was incorporated on March 2, 2011 and is listed as "Construction and General Contractors, Commercial and Residential Construction Companies and General Contractors." That's got to be a mistake.

Borzouye's partner, if he's even still his partner, James Hartt, offers advice on Facebook, and makes this promise:

Attorney James Hartt will do his very best to offer helpful and competent legal advice to all Group Members. That's nice. I always like when a lawyer does his very best to offer competent legal advice. It's a plus.

You can't just ask Hartt questions on twitter though, because his page is protected, so you're gonna have to ask his permission.

I'm going to stop here, because I think playing this game below is easier at this point.

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.Share/Save/Bookmark

Are Your A Referral Source, Or A Name Collector?

I've written about the topic of lawyers making referrals a couple times before.

The prior posts dealt with the moronic way that lawyers do the "3 names" thing. That's not a referral, that's giving 3 names and saying "pick whomever."

In 2009, I said:

Why tell the client the best Italian restaurant in town, when you can give them a list of 3? That way if they don’t like the one they choose, it’s not the lawyer’s fault.

In football, we call that “punting.” You can’t get the ball where you need it to go, so you just give it to the other team and see what they can do with it.

If you’re referring 3 lawyers, you’re referring no one. You’re punting.

Last year, I said: We are the profession known best for referring business and we suck at it.

In 2011, it's getting worse.

Here's the new trend:

An email goes out on a listserv: Anyone know a good, reasonably priced, not too expensive divorce lawyer (everyone on a listserv wants a good, reasonably priced, not too expensive lawyer) in Shitbag, Wherever?

Fifteen minutes later:

Thanks for all the responses, wow this listserv is great, I've passed along all the names to the client.

Way to go. The guy just asked you to recommend someone for him and you told him to choose between 13 names of friends of your friends, and probably some of your friends who in this economy told you they will fly there and handle the case themselves, for $500 down.

Question: What is your fear of becoming a good source for referrals to good lawyers?

Why can't you take those 13, 19, or 57 names and take a few minutes and look a couple of them up? Maybe call one or two.

I think you're better off saying you don't know anyone, because you don't.

Clients are looking for referrals, not looking to pin the tail on the donkey on the internet. They're asking you for a name, a recommendation. Give one, or don't.

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.Share/Save/Bookmark

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Florida Bar Website Hit By Rapture

I know, it's blurry. I don't know how to properly copy screen shots, but does anyone recognize this as the normal page you get when you click on a Florida Lawyer's name on the Bar's website? Check it out. It gets a little weird as you click through it.

I envision some 23 year old kid at the Bar office this Sunday night in shorts with a half-eaten bag of cheetos wondering if he'll have it fixed by the time anyone realizes what happened.

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.Share/Save/Bookmark

We May Be, Maybe, Winning The War Against Scumbag Marketing Lawyers

It was like a dream come true. This past week I had the opportunity to speak at two separate conferences on the topic of ethics and online marketing. This was like open mic night - An hour at each conference of combining all my blog posts, tweets, and articles on the topic, and telling 300 people about the sewer that lawyers have made of the internet.

I talked about specific scumbags, yes I named the liars that sell to lawyers. I spoke about how we got to this point - by listening to scumbag marketers trying to and convincing everyone that the goal of a lawyer was not becoming a good lawyer - but getting juice for Google placement. I talked about spamming lawyers, and I spoke about the difference between what you can do, and what you should do.

This was the reaction tweet I was looking for:

@miquelle (who has no bio or name or information as to who it is)
@ social media ethics session @roiconference. This guy basically hates the Internet. A little extreme IMHO.

That response came from someone at the Radius of Influence Conference (ROI) (yes, ROI, for real people), where the theme is:

"The best attorneys, not the biggest advertisers, should get the best cases."

ROI is the brain child of Injury Board co-founder Tom Young (a national membership network of plaintiff attorneys committed to a more constructive way of marketing their skills). In simple terms - this is a group of PI lawyers fed up with the marketing game. When I walked in to the room, Tom was giving the keynote. He said things like "word of mouth," and "referral," and "passion." I knew then that this was not a place for the marketing scum that have permeated the profession.

Without hesitation, I will tell you that if you are a personal injury lawyer, no, strike that, if you are a lawyer who believes there is still room to grow your practice without giving in to the bullshit peddlers that want to sell you space on the internet, attend ROI next year. It's not cheap, but it's a conference where you'll take home a new non-internet sewer perspective on how to grow your practice.

Then I went over to Avvocating, Avvo's national conference in Orlando. As I walked down the hall, my excitement to give the same talk increased with every SEO, marketing, Google placement vendor table I passed. This would be a crowd that would be hostile to my talk. When I entered the room, the first thing I saw and heard was a guy in a Google shirt telling some lawyer the comparison between the "hits" to his website and his blog.

I gave the talk. No one walked out. As at ROI, there were some giggles when I spoke of ghostwriting blogs and tweets, and told everyone to never hire a lawyer for marketing or social media advice.

What fascinated me was that lawyers, both young and old, seemed interested in building law practices outside of faking it on the internet.

Many ask what my goal is in all of this. It is two-fold - one, to put out of business all the snake oil salesmen, and two, to change the message about what it takes to build a practice, even in 2011.

Why do I think we're winning? ("we" is the side of ethical and off-line marketing)

Out of 300 people, 6 told me that the best case they ever got, came from the internet.

Stay tuned.

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.Share/Save/Bookmark

Saturday, May 21, 2011

The Real Rapture

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.Share/Save/Bookmark

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

The Silence Of The Lambs

Lawyers at their core are advocates. They speak out. They take positions. Some take on cases and clients that are controversial, tough, and unpopular. Others toil in the background, but represent clients nonetheless.

The others are not lawyers. They are businessmen and women with law degrees who check under their fingernails throughout the day to make sure there's not a speck of dirt. They work "in" the legal profession, so they say, as they try to make a buck off their brethren with their consulting, marketing, and books.

Staying silent is a marketing tactic these days. Anyone in the blogosphere or on social media has seen the fear that defines today's marketing lawyer. The scared silent ones are not here to advocate, opine, or take a stand for anything - they are here to create a personal brand - to make everyone like them, to enjoy their irrelevancy in the Happysphere.

And so young Joseph Rakofsky has filed suit against 74, no 75, no 76, no, wait, between 74-80, and more to come defendants known simply as "the internet."

In response, "the internet" has spoken.

Since the filing of the lawsuit by Joseph Rakofsky, real lawyers everywhere have weighed in.

So I checked around to see what some of the "others," those with law degrees who are in the business of selling to and writing for lawyers were saying about this lawsuit.

Surely Susan Cartier Liebel, head cheerleader of Solo Practice University, where lawyers pay to learn about, well I don't know what they learn because I'm not a student, would have something important to say about this young solo's collapse:


And social media "expert" Adrian Dayton, who calls himself an "experienced corporate lawyer" after a total sum of 8 months at his law firm. Here's what he had to say:

Which Movie Does Your Law Firm’s Social Media Policy Most Closely Resemble?

Kevin O'Keefe, who sells blog platforms to lawyers?

Facebook for lawyers : Wonderful relationship building medium for business development.

Larry Bodine, one of the premier lawyer marketers in the country? Surely he would want to comment on the biggest marketing fiasco in recent history?

Love it or hate it, Avvo.com is a force to be reckoned with in Law Firm Marketing

Niki Black, the queen evangelist of tech for lawyers who occasionally writes advice posts for young lawyers?

Well, maybe young Joseph needs a Droid: Droid Apps for Lawyers

The "others" have made sure to say nothing. It's not an accident. It's intentional. They would never weigh in on something this controversial. It's not good for business, for the "personal brand." Maybe they'd get sued and then that would be just so awful, wouldn't it?

They've decided that staying out of real legal issues, issues of the day that are controversial, is better for their brand. Their relevancy exists only to those who think they are fabulous, and that they hold all the secrets of tech, marketing, and social media. They have their own vision of their importance to the legal profession.

Those of you who remain silent, congratulations. I'm sure your personal brand is meaningful. To whom, I have no idea.

Fear has its use but cowardice has none.
- Mahatma Gandhi

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.Share/Save/Bookmark

Monday, May 16, 2011

The End Of Anonymity

The website "skateboard city forum," (which I won't link to because some of you will leave there dumber than you are now), confirms that the childhood prank of leaving shit on someone's doorstep, ringing the doorbell, and running away is still around.

It's how I best describe the anonymous comment on a blog.

Some of my friends did away with anonymous comments long ago. My blogs don't get as many comments, and with moderation, it's been easy to delete the written words of people I am ashamed to know hold law licenses.

Whenever bloggers are critical of anonymous comments, the anonymous comment support group chimes in hysterically with all the important reasons why anonymity is essential to the continued existence of the internet. Every excuse from "I work for someone and I live every day scared of expressing an opinion," to "I am anonymous because I choose to be anonymous (read: I have the right to be anonymous and you can't take that away from me) gets repeated with just the right amount of entitlement.

While I will never understand why someone who went to law school, passed the bar, and works as an advocate is satisfied with living in fear of expressing their opinion, I no longer want to provide a place for it here.

People leave anonymous comments for only three reasons:

1. They want to criticize someone and are too scared to do it to the person's face,

2. They want to say things that aren't true without any consequences; or,

3. They fear that their opinion will have repercussions somewhere.

Whether you live in the world of 1, 2, or all three, I don't want you here. I don't want you here because for the most part, you're a lawyer, and a pathetic one at that. I don't know what you are afraid of, but you're an embarrassment to the profession, and I'd rather you embarrass yourself somewhere else, anonymously.

You want to comment here, leave your name.

If you don't, you can take your shit elsewhere.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.Share/Save/Bookmark

Sunday, May 15, 2011

Seeking Out Failure

Every once in a while I check in with some of my favorite resident snake oil salesmen. you know, the ones who promise desperate lawyers clients, and in turn, much money, if you just listen to (and pay) them for their "secrets?" I want to make sure their secret is still safe with the internet - that lawyers still haven't put them out of business by outing them as frauds.

I'm never disappointed.

So this morning, I clicked over to Mr. "let me show you how to start a law firm in 90 days" to see what he was up to (sorry, no link love here).

There he is, traveling the country, sponsored by a couple prominent companies (that also sell to lawyers), "teaching" lawyers how to do it right. How to make money as a lawyer, how to build the practice of your dreams.

What still doesn't matter to lawyers, is that he has no practice, never did, never will.

I mean, who cares that the dentist who is going to pull your tooth has never pulled a tooth? Who cares that the plumber that is going to fix your leak, has plenty of leaks in his own home which he can't fix.

My friend here is a lawyer who gets paid to tell you how to run your practice. He runs no practice. He ran a practice - into the ground. He's so good at telling you how to run your office, that his license was recently suspended. When confronted, he had more excuses than you could imagine. That you go and listen to him makes me wonder who is really the fraud in the relationship.

Mistakes are great. I've made tons. I've learned from them and in turn, used them as pillars for success. Our hero here, never did. He failed, and is now selling his failure. He's selling it to you - you, the lawyer seeking it out.

The best advice I've ever received is from those who have done what I want to do, and done it better. Why is it that you want to pay to hear from people who's only claim to fame is failure?

Is the free candy that good?

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.Share/Save/Bookmark

Friday, May 13, 2011

Joseph Rakofsky's Second Futile Race To The Courthouse

You remember Joseph Rakofsky, the poster child for today's lawyer marketing circus.

He took on a murder case, the first case he ever took to trial. It was a disaster.

Many wrote about it. Now, instead of learning a lesson about how becoming a good lawyer takes more than a good web presence, he's decided to expand his reputation as a buffoon by filing a lawsuit against.... the internet.

Joseph, oh Joseph. From whom are you seeking advice? Haven't you ever been to an Andrew Dice Clay show where he makes an example of someone in the audience who is trying to get attention? Dice likes to say this:

"You did this to you, I didn't do this to you."

It was only a matter of time before a young lawyer, trying to "fake it until you make it" would be outed.

It's been done.

And you, Joseph, are now trying to blame others for your lack of experience and lack of ability to capably represent a criminal defendant.

You've learned nothing.

Which is exactly who you will become at the end of all of this.

This is my opinion. It comes with 16 years of experience. Do with it what you wish.

Good luck on your second case in your career. This time, luckily it won't be a client who has entrusted their life to you who will lose, it will be you.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.Share/Save/Bookmark

Monday, May 9, 2011

Bad News: To Remain In The Profession, You Have To Love The Law

It shouldn't shock me that the headline of Brad Kane's piece in the Hartford Business Journal read "Profession In Turmoil"

Why is the profession in turmoil?

The price of admission is up and interest in being a lawyer is down. The passion that once marked the profession is fading in the face of business pressures as law firms race to be the biggest and most comprehensive, judging lawyers’ value on the revenue they generate.

That's a long answer for: people are getting in to the profession to make money, not to be advocates.

I say that all the time. Some tell me I'm wrong. Others tell me I'm right, and insist that this is the reason everyone becomes lawyers and they don't know anyone who became a lawyer because they wanted to be a lawyer - because the only reason to become a lawyer is to make money.

Something like that.

But I love to see that it's not just me, as others would make be believe, that thinks a slew of law students in the 90's and through present time went to law school for one reason:

Lawyering used to be a profession. Now, over the course of time, it has become just a business,” said Bill Crowe, partner at Hartford law firm Mayo Crowe. “A lot of people are disillusioned because they go to law school thinking they are getting into this dynamic, lucrative career; and they’ve come to realize that often they are just pushing papers around.

The large role money plays in today’s legal market undermines the profession’s higher goals, said Lee Hoffman, a member of Hartford law firm Pullman & Comley LLC. The first job of a lawyer is to make someone’s legal problem their own. The second job is to be an adviser. Once the profession becomes about the paycheck, those tasks are hard to fulfill.

And here's the knife in the heart:

Although the pay is high compared to other professions — the median starting salary for a 2010 University of Connecticut School of Law graduate was $75,000 — a law degree does not lead to a cushy lifestyle. Other professions such as entrepreneur or investment banker are more lucrative with a lower demand on time.

"More lucrative." "Lower demand on time." Now I have the attention of the slacksoisie. See, you don't have to become a lawyer to make money - go, do something else. Get out of the profession. Leave us advocates to try and bring it back up to par - go start a business or become a stockbroker. Just go.

It's already happening, your friends are going elsewhere:

After a significant jump in law school applications in 2009 and 2010, law school applications dropped 11.1 percent nationwide this year. Connecticut’s three law schools — at Yale University, University of Connecticut and Quinnipiac University — saw a 17 percent drop in applications in 2011.


Those people who thought earning a law degree would lead to riches are taking a much broader scope and thinking about if it is going to pay off,” said Karen Lynn DeMeola, UConn School of Law assistant dean for admissions and student finance.

So take that "much broader scope," think about the long hard days of working in a profession that you never wanted to enter but for the cash.

Passion is what keeps lawyers in the profession, said Jeff White, associate at Robinson & Cole and chairman of the Connecticut Bar Association Young Lawyers Section.


Look it up.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.Share/Save/Bookmark

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Law School Merit Scholarships vs. Millennial Work Ethic. TKO

The Sunday New York Times exposed the deep dark secret of law school merit scholarships - you have to work hard to keep them. Above The Law, the most read legal blog and home of hundreds of unemployed pajama wearing lawyers spending their days commenting anonymously, (example: The issue would be: WHY FUCK ARE WE GIVING ANY OF THESE ASSHOLES MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE?) picked up the story.

Yes folks, the same generation that has told BigLaw and other legal employers the conditions under which they will grace the legal profession with their wonderous knowledge (free pajamas, 3 days a week at Starbucks - one including a full 4 hour day - vacations "when needed to create a better work/life balance," immediate delivery of the latest Apple product upon release, and a sufficient amount of hugs) is very, very upset that law schools appear to be giving out a lot of free money and requiring a certain grade point average to maintain the scholarship. Shouldn't they get the money because they need it and they're cute?

How can the law schools do this? First they force you to attend at gunpoint by telling you that their graduates get jobs, and now they give you scholarships, require a 3.0, causing those like Alexandra Leumer, 2009 Golden Gate graduate, to "feel snookered."

Sounds like a snookered lawsuit industry may be on the horizon.

Leumer elaborates: By the middle of second semester of that first year, everyone saw the system for what it was,” she said. “We were furious. We realized that statistically, because of the curve, there was no way for many of us to keep our scholarships. But at that point, you’re a year in. They’ve got you. You feel stuck.

Candidly, this is something I never had a problem with, as I was always so far below the curve academicly, I never knew what it was like to be on the other side, and work to stay there.

When will the law schools get it? When will they realize that free money is free money. It's like a salary - requiring work to keep it is just, well, wrong. Those days are over. Money should be handed out to interested law students because they want to go to law school, period. If we begin teaching them that they have to work for the money they are being given, the only result will be a bunch of hard working lawyers, and that is so 2000.

The Times understands today's law student: In referring to the students' lack of knowledge that the scholarships are kept through competition for the required GPA based on the curve, it nails it: Students who don’t seek out this data tend to regard merit scholarship offers as a school saying “We love you.” It’s more like an invitation to a foot race, and before you get to the starting line you’d better know how fast to run and how many others are running.

Now who wants to run fast when the alternative is to have people tell you they love you?

There is a solution to the problem. The Times reports that Chicago-Kent offers students less scholarship money ($9,000) if they want it guaranteed, and more ($15,000) if they can clear the 3.25 G.P.A. hurdle.

Guess what?

Ninety percent opt for the larger and riskier sum, according to school officials.

Snookered. Yeah.

When we look back at this time, we will remember this as the generation of poor, stupid, impressionable college graduates who were "snookered" into entering the legal profession.

Jeff Lipshaw over at Legal Profession Blog, has some thoughts on the snookering:

"I have this image of one's acceptance letter carrying warning decals that make it look like my lawn mower or, at the very least, like my Starbucks cup. "CAUTION: THE BEVERAGE YOU ARE ABOUT TO DRINK IS HOT, THE SCHOOL YOU ARE ABOUT TO ATTEND HAS COMPETITIVE STUDENTS, THE LIFE YOU ARE ABOUT TO LEAD IS UNCERTAIN, AND THERE'S NO WAY OUT."

Just like a Starbucks cup.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.Share/Save/Bookmark