Earlier today, we reported that protests over the proposed tuition hike at UCLA got a bit testy. But we also noted that the protests didn’t seem to include a lot of law students, even though their tuition is going through the roof as well. One friend had this apathetic response when asked about the protests:

Dude, I have finals. And my 2L grades matter because I’ll be doing 3L recruiting. Unless we’re protesting canceled summer programs, count me out.

We wanted to know how the law school generally was reacting to today’s festivities, so we reached out to the UCLA Student Bar Association President, Lenny Sandoval. We asked him why law student participation seemed lacking:

Being a third year with one foot out the door, it’s tough for me to give a totally representative view, but while I agree that the involvement of law students as a whole is a bit subdued, I think the reaction from the identity organizations and their leadership (Raza, BLSA, etc.) has been very supportive and vocal of the undergraduate led movements. Based on FB status updates and gChat blurbs I saw at least 6 or 7 people either returning from the protests or planning on going to the protests, so that’s something at least.

Sandoval also noted that law students need to be a little bit more careful when it comes to potentially getting arrested than college kids.

That’s certainly true, especially in this economy. There’s no sense having your tuition jacked up and hurting your chances at snagging a legal job.

But something other than fear and general apathy might be driving down law student participation in civil disobedience. We also spoke with UCLA Law professor Stephen Bainbridge and he notes that people at the law school might just be paying a little bit more attention to the general state of affairs with the U.C. system than your average college student.

Thoughts from Professor Bainbridge after the jump.

A tipster just sent in this video from UCLA:

Berkeley students, take note. That is how you cause a ruckus.

The AP reports:

About 200 demonstrators are chanting and marching around a UCLA building where University of California regents are scheduled to vote on a 32 percent fee increase for next year.

Protesters from several UC campuses stayed overnight at a campus tent city to take part in a second day of demonstrations on Thursday.

UCLA spokesman Phil Hampton says 30 to 50 students also have staged a sit-in at an ethnic studies building and have chained shut the doors. They’re peaceful and are being allowed to stay.

Sadly, reports indicate that it is predominately college students that are involved in today’s shenanigans. Are all the law students already mentally beaten?

We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, ‘Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won’t say anything. Just leave us alone.’ Well, I’m not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get mad! I don’t want you to protest. I don’t want you to riot - I don’t want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn’t know what to tell you to write. I don’t know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you’ve got to get mad.

Get mad, but stay safe. Rubber bullets hurt like hell.

Protesters gather at UCLA to oppose UC fee hike [Associated Press]
UPDATE: UCLA student protest now in full swing [True/Slant]

Earlier: Berkeley Law Students, How Did the ‘Not Ironic’ Strike Go?

Yesterday, we told you that big tuition hikes could be coming to schools in the University of California system. But we didn’t know that Berkeley students had a plan to do something about it. They’re going out on strike! With university workers who want a raise! Or something!

Hey, it’s the Berkeley way. When they are pissed about something, they protest. It’s better than the Harvard way; when we’re pissed about something, we ask Daddy to fire somebody.

[Yale way = invite SCOTUS justice to speak about the issue, ask justice only clerkship application questions. UT way = shoot it. NYU way = wait to see how Columbia handles the problem. I could go on and on.]

The protest was scheduled for today. Those hardcore Berkeley students were even asking professors to reschedule classes so more people could participate in the strike.

(Wait for it)

Yes, you read that correctly. Students wanted to strike, but didn’t want to risk missing class.

After the jump, the Berkeley law blog, Nuts & Boalts explains the problems with this plan:

Last month, we reported that UC Hastings College of Law was set to become the most expensive law school in California. Apparently, the good people at Berkeley and UC Davis took that as a challenge.

Tomorrow, November 18th there will be a meeting on the proposed budget for the California university system. The tuition numbers for law schools would be terrifying for prospective law students — if only they were able to exercise common sense.

First let’s look at the proposed tuition and fees for California residents at Berkeley and other California public law schools over the next three years:

Notice that these numbers are up from the proposal that was on the table just this past August. I can’t imagine what tuition will look like when we actually get to 2012 - 2013. By then they’ll be charging people in Euros and organ donations.

After the jump, we look at what these schools plan for non-resident students (hint, it’s obscene enough that I considered putting up NSFW warnings), and why UC administrators think students will accept the tuition hikes.

We’ve had a lot of evidence that prospective law students have hatched a diabolical plan to flood the legal market with fresh talent. But this graph from Most Strongly Supported tells it all:

My Lord.

Right now, I’m like Oliver Platt at the end of 2012. Shut the damn door or we’re all gonna die.

Some other observations after the jump.

New Mexico law professor Erik Gerding started off an interesting discussion in the blogosphere with his post, Death of “Big Law School’?, on the Conglomerate.

Ashby Jones at the WSJ Law Blog and Larry Ribstein at Ideoblog have already weighed in.

Gerding’s central thesis is that problems with the Biglaw business model will have major effects on the law school business model:

It would likely mean the end of the law school boom - with its expanding law faculties and the bumper crop of new law schools. Like it or not, the business model (I hate applying that term to legal education, but can’t think of another one) of many law schools is heavily dependent on students getting high paying law firm jobs to pay off high law school tuition. Law firms are also prime benefactors of law school endowments. Without corporate law consuming law school graduates by the dozens, law school will face massive economic pressure.

You’d like to think that. But there is only one way to exert massive economic pressure on law schools, and it is not happening yet.

The American Bar Association has a plan to help out unemployed lawyers with their student loans. Seriously. An actual plan. The National Law Journal reports:

The ABA wants the government to let unemployed graduates convert private loans into federal ones. The change could allow them to defer repaying those loans for as long as three years.

The plan is so simple and helpful that I’m almost positive Congress will find a way to horribly mess it up. The ABA wants to let people borrow money from the government to pay off their private loans. Then unemployed lawyers can put their new federal loans into deferment for up to three years if they need to.

The effort is in its early stages — executives of the largest provider of private law school loans, Access Group Inc., weren’t even aware of it, according to spokeswoman Linda Smith.

“This is really intended to give them some breathing room,” said ABA President Carolyn Lamm.

The plan was proposed by the ABA’s recently formed Commission on the Impact of the Economic Crisis on the Profession and Legal Needs, which is examining how lawyers can confront the recession.

Of course, nobody knows precisely how the plan is going to work.

We have reported on the proposed merger of Southern New England School of Law with the University of Massachusetts, which would bring the first public law school to the state. At the time, I wrote:

I mean no offense by this, but isn’t the Southern New England School of Law not a very good law school? There’s a reason the school isn’t accredited, right? I just don’t see how raising the profile of bad law schools is the right way to go.

Apparently, Southern New England School of Law took offense. The Boston Globe reports:

“My students and faculty have been maligned,” the school’s dean, Robert Ward, said during a recent tour of campus, a 75,000-square-foot three-story building next to an outlet mall in North Dartmouth.

Ward acknowledged his school has a way to go to meet national accreditation standards, but said it is far from the crumbling, financially destitute failure critics portray it to be.

He noted a retired appeals court judge — a Harvard Law graduate, no less — among his 13-member faculty.

Putting aside the question of whether or not Southern New England is a good school, can we get back to the question of whether Massachusetts needs a public law school?

The influx of law students into the profession — and the deflationary pressure they bring to legal salaries — just can’t be stopped. There are too many prospective law students. And they aren’t listening to reason.

We have barred the gates but cannot hold them for long. The ground shakes, drums… drums in the deep. We cannot get out … they are coming.

The University of Iowa College of Law — that’s right, Iowa — is receiving a record number of applications. The administration sent out this, almost taunting, email:

Greetings from The University of Iowa College of Law:

We have nearly completed a busy Fall travel schedule. Also, it has been a very successful travel season, as reflected in our total application numbers to date: Applications to The University of Iowa College of Law have increased 62% versus this time last year, and the quality and diversity of those applications has increased significantly, as well. It is still early in the admissions season, so we will see if these positive signs hold up over the long term. These increases do, however, reinforce the strengths of The University of Iowa College of Law:

I don’t even know how to make sense of a 62% increase in applications. But I’ll try after the jump.

We’ve talked a lot about law schools that are raising tuition. It borders on unconscionable for schools to pump up tuition at a time of deflationary legal salaries and a difficult job market.

So I was a little surprised when I received this email from a University of Miami School of Law student:

The Dean of UM just sent out an email announcing policy changes that are going to save students’ tuition money (up to a couple thousand $$$ per semester). This while other law school in America is trying to milk every last cent out of students.

A law school that costs less? To the bat mobile!

The Government Accountability Office has released a new report on the rising cost of legal education. Who is to blame? Not the ABA. Not university presidents using their law schools as cash cows.

According to the GAO, the U.S. News law school rankings put law school deans in a “resource intensive” competition to rise up the U.S. News list. The two key slides from the 44-page GAO report (PDF) are below:

The GAO makes a provocative argument. Let’s discuss it after the jump.

Thomas M. Cooley Law School — ranked #12 among ABA accredited schools, according to Thomas M. Cooley Law School — is looking to raise tuition. The school has been expanding, but apparently enrollment is down. So, predictably, the school decided to raise rates on its students.

An email informing Cooley students of the change was sent over the summer by Cooley’s president and dean, Don LeDuc. The last paragraph reads as follows:

Of course, we wish that we did not have to increase tuition, but the reality is that the cost of operation escalates and enrollment varies. The May 2009 class came in below the usual size, and transfers remain too high. Our operating revenue is tuition-based, so tuition must be set based on projected enrollment numbers. This year, the cost of financing our facilities at Lansing, Grand Rapids, and Auburn Hills increased due to the dislocation in the financial markets (the Ann Arbor facility is leased, so it does not contribute to the increased financing cost). It is in everyone’s interest to recruit new first-year students and to retain them in the second and third year.

How will students react to this?

Back in the day, young lawyers would complain that they were “selling their souls” for $160K a year. But now we are in a recession and the price of a fresh soul has come down considerably. From Craigslist:

1 Soul of Healthy Young Man - $100000 (Hamden, CT)

For sale:
The gently used soul of a healthy, Roman Catholic, young twenties, quinnipiac law student.

So, let me give you some background on the product and the reasons for selling:

My student loans are piling up and I’ve realized I really don’t give a shit what type of law I practice, I’m really only in this thing to further myself economically. Problem is, my student loans are outrageous and by the time I pay them off I’ll be spending the rest of my money on Cialis and colonoscopies. I don’t want that, I don’t need that. So let’s make a fucking deal.

In exchange for the payment of my student loans you will get my soul. This is a la motherfucking carte. No organs included. No skin, no vas differens, and certainly no homunculus.

Dude, you go to Quinnipiac, can’t you get a job as a pollster?

Just the other day, we told you about a law firm that was looking for free labor from an attorney who had already graduated from law school and passed the bar. Here, this law student wants somebody to purchase his soul for $100,000 bucks. When inflated expectation meets free market capitalism the fields are soaked with the tears of the martyrs.

Read more of the ad after the jump.

To paraphrase this video, inspired by an Avenue Q song and submitted to Above the Law’s first-ever Law Revue Contest, “What can you do with a JD from Cardozo?”

Um…. David Letterman? From Bitten & Bound:

David Letterman was the victim of a $2 million extortion plot and we have now discovered that according to New York public records, Stephanie Birkitt, 34, a former intern on The Late Show, lived with the accused extortionist Robert Joe Halderman, a CBS 48 Hours producer, and may have unwittingly fed him the information through the pages of her diary, photos and personal correspondence….

According to TMZ, Birkitt is one of the women who engaged in an affair with her boss, but ended it in 2003, prior to the birth of Letterman’s son….

Birkitt began working as a page for CBS New, 48 Hours, and The Late Show while still in college [at Wake Forest] in 1996. She spent a short time as an associate producer on segments for correspondent Erin Moriarty but soon decided that she wasn’t a news hound. That was when Letterman hired her as a personal assistant. She was initially brought on to handle his charities and his Indy car racing team, but her duties expanded over time.

Apparently so. Anyway, here’s the legal connection:

Birkett went on to the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City beginning in 2005 and passed the Connecticut bar exam in February 2009.

UPDATE: As noted in the comments, Birkitt also passed the New York bar exam in February. Congrats on passing two state bars, Steph!

FURTHER UPDATE: Actually, Birkitt’s relationship with Letterman may have lasted much longer. See here.

Now, before the elitists among you start ranking on Cardozo Law, there’s something you should know.

UPDATE / CORRECTION: After we noticed comments 34 and 41, we reached out to Loyola Law School for clarification. A Loyola spokesperson confirmed that the Chicago Tribune made an error: Loyola has renamed its main building for Philip Corboy, but NOT the school itself. For a correct account of what has taken place, see the law school’s press release.

We regret our replication of the Chicago Tribune’s error. Thanks to our commenters for bringing the mistake to our attention.

FURTHER UPDATE: The Tribune has corrected its story, but without noting the fact that it was corrected. Most publications, such as the New York Times and Slate, will note substantial corrections after they are made. Here at Above the Law, we will also explicitly note corrections that go to matters of substance (as opposed to, say, typographical errors).

We mentioned this already in Morning Docket, but the decision by Loyola - Chicago bears further discussion. We know that the overall economy has made things difficult on law schools. Tuition keeps going up, despite nearly record numbers of new applicants. So one should applaud a law school for getting a major boost to its endowment.

Loyola - Chicago received a huge gift, so massive that the school has decided to change its name its main building name in honor of the donor. The Chicago Tribune reports:

Loyola University Chicago’s School of Law will be renamed the Philip H. Corboy Law Center after the noted alumnus and prominent personal injury attorney who donated the largest single gift in the law school’s history, it will be announce Monday.

Some might argue that a decrease in the confusing proliferation of law schools named after St. Ignatius Loyola — we already have Loyola of Chicago, Loyola of Los Angeles, and Loyola of New Orleans — is a good thing. But was going with Philip Corboy the right move? Wasn’t Henry Walpole available?

More details after the jump.

Now that the New York Times has covered it, it’s official: the recession has hit the legal profession.

Here’s more evidence. Yesterday afternoon, while walking along 53rd Street in Manhattan (between Broadway and Eighth), we came across The Man in a Van. Aaron Heideman, aka The Man in a Van, is traveling around the country, collecting stories of how people have been affected by the recession. Contributors write down their narratives on a giant poster (which, when unfurled, spans 50 yards). Selected stories are written on the van itself.

Here is one person’s story, from a former law clerk — someone who would usually have no trouble landing a job:

Two additional pictures — a larger shot of the banner, plus one of the van — after the jump.

Do you want to purchase a discount legal education, but you don’t know where to look? A new list from the National Jurist will point you in the right direction. Tax Prof Blog reproduces the list of which law schools give you the most bang for your buck. Here are the top 15:

How do you come up with a list that ranks N. Carolina Central the best at anything? Check out the methodology after the jump.

In a world where there are already too many law degrees flooding the market and allowing firms to handle their associates like fungible assets, the new law school at UC Irvine continues to rake in positive press. We’ve previously noted that the new law school is already one of the most selective in the country. Today, the L.A. Times positively gushes about the new public law school:

In a challenging fundraising climate, the first new public law school in California in more than a generation begins classes Monday at UC Irvine with 61 top-flight students, a highly regarded faculty and the goal of becoming a model for an innovative legal education emphasizing hands-on experience and public service.

It appears prestige isn’t just conferred by a magazine.

Brian Leiter, a University of Chicago law professor and author of an influential blog on legal education, said that, based on the quality of its faculty and the entrance exam scores of its first class, UCI should be ranked among the nation’s top 20 law schools, status that typically takes a new school decades to achieve.

“It’s quite unusual. But this is an unusual situation,” Leiter said. “This is the University of California, after all, which is a big selling point. They’ve recruited the right kind of people from the right kind of places. And the fact that someone of Erwin [Chemerinsky]’s stature is the dean obviously helps.”

The school touts a commitment to public service that you don’t often hear from law schools. It also touts free tuition, which sounds like the Gods are having an orgasm to law students hoping to keep their debts under control.

After the jump we ask if UCI Law can keep it up. And an update on potential future tuition decisions.

Many of you are probably asking yourselves that very question. Especially if you are deeply in debt and/or without legal employment.

We decided to go to law school because, well, we didn’t have anything better to do. Law school has been described, quite accurately, as “the great American default option.”

If you’re in the same boat, or if you went to law school for some other less-than-inspiring reason (e.g., a desire for a six-figure salary), you may have a hard time relating to the clip below. It’s a promo for the “My Inspiration” video contest sponsored by Access Group, the non-profit student loan company, asking contestants to make videos explaining what inspired them to go to law school:

As was the case with last year’s video contest, the prize is a $10,000 scholarship to law school for the maker of the best video. In addition, five $1,500 honorable mention scholarships will be awarded.

Alas, if you were hoping to enter the contest yourself, sorry; the ten finalists have been chosen. Feel free to check out the finalists here, then cast your vote here. Enjoy.

Earlier: ‘What are your worries as a law student?’

Just this morning, we distinguished between a recent graduate who is suing her alma mater, and the general need for somebody to rein in law school tuition.

Today, the National Law Journal provides us with additional evidence that law school administrators are totally detached from the economic realities facing law school graduates:

Double-digit tuition increases loom for students at some of the country’s top public law schools.

School administrators say that the unusually large tuition hikes for the coming academic year are largely spurred by cuts in public funding — with endowment losses, initiatives to improve their schools and pressure to keep up with competing institutions also playing a part.

Are these law school administrators suffering from a dissociative psychotic breakdown? Jobs are being lost, salaries are being cut — yet law schools are raising tuition by double digits? This sounds like the kind of crap Louis XVI used to pull.

After the jump, we go searching for Robespierre.