This blog is about living the American Dream at the dawn of the new millennium! I am a nameless, mid-20s, bottom 150 Law School Graduate who finds himself marginally attached and awash in a sea of overeducated but underpaid, indentured peers who feel, and were, duped by the promise of a better life through debt and modern chemistry. Let's get to the point. The Law School Industrial Complex is a scam that has destroyed a generation out of greed. Vendettas were once legal and the pursuit of one was seen not only as moral, but necessary. This newly minted lawyer is going to continue the practice. DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL YOU MORONS! Ce qui suit est ce qui reste!

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Here's Why Law Professors Are Evil & Generation Fantasy Camp

Well this shit just keeps getting more ridiculous.  Brian Tamanaha has written a god damn book about the law school scam where he, in all likelihood, doesn't admit that he only started giving a shit about the law school scam due to the scam blogs.  In this waste of paper and ink, he is going to 1) outline the problem 2) provide a bullshit history from his perspective about how this horrendous situation came to be 3) discuss the  consequences and 4) provide his useless, feckless solutions (*Hint, Tamanaha's solution is "Let's diversify law schools by region and typology, that way not everyone has to own a Rolex to know what time it is--oh you fucking useless law professor I've seen a gay three legged donkey do a better job of impregnating a zebra than you have done at being a decent human being).


I still hold that Tamanaha is a big bag of shit.  I know some other scambloggers think, "Oh no you're criticizing an ally, he's on our side, he's helping our cause!"  Well fuck you too you idiot.  At the end of the day, Tamanaha is still benefiting from the scam.  Except now, instead of benefiting from the perpetration of the scam he is benefiting from his "Save the Law Students!" routine (as if he is really taking a hit by taking a break--in terms of prestige, acclaim and publicity --from his vital work publishing articles on Polynesian Marital Property Division or whatever obscure, esoteric subject he used to rely on to distinguish himself from the other Professor/vampires).  

Paul Campos, the hack behind Inside the Law School Scam & perhaps only distinguishable from Tamanaha by the amount of hair that sits atop his vampire fangs, who couldn't find fame through his previous hobby horse of "Don't make fun of fat people! There are a lot of fat people! They'll buy my shit and give me fame!" has also managed to capture the lime light he has longed for as a "public intellectual."  Like Tamanaha, he too profits/benefits from the law school scam that scambloggers started.  Neither one really cares or would actually do anything to make a real difference.  No no they'll just snipe from their boxes in the fancy section of the theater.  At least the assholes like Henderson and the ABA are operating by the well established principle of "Don't Bite the Hand That Feeds You."  What's your excuse you fucking cowards?  Is practicing law at your age too hard?

There are a lot of reasons why I've gone to great lengths to keep my anonymity, one being that no one can claim I've benefited from it ala Tamana-fucktard-Campos. 


Both Tamanaha and Campos make the same exact fucking arguments that scambloggers before my time, during my time and those who will come after my time have made about the quasi-criminal enterprise, of which, they are direct beneficiaries.  Until one of these fucking vampires quits their god damn jobs in protest, I refuse to accept that they actually care or are trying to help. No no you fucking assholes, if anything you are, in moral terms, far worse because your verbal assertions imply that you know better, but you're every day you go off to be law professors in an evil system anyway.


The only difference between the "converted" Tamanaha-fucktard-Campos is the way that they derive value from the students (whose futures they still ruin by the way, if they're in a law school class it's too late for them).  Before the scam became readily apparent, Tamanaha-fucktard-Campos was just like every professor and administrator that they now pretend to question and decry.  Both of them shilled the bullshit for years...happily, blissfully unaware/ignorant of what happened to their "students" when they put on that stupid hat and accepted the toilet paper called a diploma.  Currently, both of them are still dependent on the student tuition dollars to pay their bills, put food on their tables and spend money buying shit they don't need as every good American consumer does (at least the ones with disposable income).  The English language fails to adequately describe my feelings towards people like Tamanaha-fucktard-Campos.  There are literally no words, so I resort to hyperbole and extreme, ridiculous examples like rapist-pedophile (which has also migrated to other scambloggers because they too find the English language lacking in descriptive ability).


By the way, apparently I was cited in an article by some other stupid fucking law grad who can't make a living practicing law, who questioned my "tone" as radical and the words of the author, I frequently shift "into completely violent imagery and [I am]...reminiscent of descriptions of the French Revolution."  Hey Daniel D. Barnhizer, the D I am assuming stands for Douchebag, in the words of Louis C.K the stand-up comedian who I quoted and you took out of context to make your point, "Go suck a bag of dicks!"  

There is only 1 acceptable or appropriate response to any 1L or Law School Professor, who, at any point or time, utters a sentence or forms an opinion in writing regarding the educational process of law schools, the job market for attorneys or the legal profession as a whole (*See below).
*For 3L's/recent grads, repeat the above demonstrated process until your point is made.

Danny, do you really think this is my serious, actual person tone? Are you out of your fucking mind? If you can't read between the lines you stand even less of a chance at life than the fact you're in Michigan...oh wait you're a law professor (Sorry to my Michigan friends but you know the Dannys-of-the-world exist).

What kind of a feckless fucktard are you? Thank Christ you weren't around when a social justice movement that really mattered, i.e. slavery, suffrage, the civil rights movement.  And, yes you gigantic puckered asshole, I am comparing the law school scam to those social justice movements; if for no other reason that the Legal Profession itself likes to regularly claim it is the gatekeeper to all things good in society and civilization (so what does it say when the purporter of social good, i.e. the Legal Profession, is actually one of the most corrupt and maleficent members of that society? Damn it...questions make thinking hard...makes me want to go poopy).


Anyway, the real reason I came to post, is that I recently read a book called Sex on the Moon by Ben Mezrich, the Facebook movie guy.  But there's one passage that struck me as extremely relevant to the law school scam.

The "protagonist" if you want to call him that or at least the main character is some poor Millenial Generation type who comes from a hard past but decides he wants to be an astronaut.  He manages to apply and is accepted to NASA's co-op program for college students.  This is one of those types of programs, like the Presidential Management Fellows that has seen a ridiculous spike in Law School Grad applicants, that your typical law student would give up their genitals to get into with today's current job market (*Go Check Out Life's Mockery to see what I mean).

Long story short, the main character is a brilliant but emotionally flawed individual who ends up hatching a scheme to steal Apollo mission moon rocks, highly illegal to even own, while he's a co-op intern.  He gets kicked out of the program plus goes to jail for 7 years after and FBI sting in Florida.


The passage is one that Mezrich writes where the main character is on a break between his tours as a co-op at NASA and reflects on his life,

And here at NASA, he'd become this adventurous, impressive character--everyone knew who he was, everyone wanted to be around him. And yet he knew,  depp down, that it was partially an act. It was a reinvention, because deep down he was this shy, messed-up kid who'd been kicked out of his house, who'd gotten married too young, who wanted to be an astronaut but probably would never have the chance.

Lying in his bed, in the middleof the night, it was the first time he'd really let the truth resonate inside of him.  His chance of becoming an astronaut, of becoming a piece of human history like Everett Gibson--it was beyond improbable.  The odds just weren't in his favor.  He had no connections, no fallback plan, no means to compete with the kids who could pay their way through life.

And yet he was living each day as if it was just a matter of time.  He was swept up in the fantasy of being the first man on Mars--the same way he'd created the fantasy of who he now was, this adventurer, this James Bond type of character who could do anything, who would do anything.  Fantasy was his true talent.  Fantasy had always been his true talent, the cloak he'd wrapped himself in to protect him from the things he couldn't control.

Little did the main character know that he was one of several thousand other kids just like him at law schools thinking the exact same thoughts and feeling the exact same way...except the stuff they were doing as potential lawyers wasn't nearly as cool.



  1. I have not read all of Barnhizer's article. There is only so much pseudo-intellectual garbage that one can handle. He teaches at Michigan $TTTTaTTTTe, which means that he is clearly benefiting from the scam. "But he wrote a law review article criticizing the law schools!!"

    We live in a sick world. When the scambloggers were the only ones covering this TTTT "profession," critics and shills said, "Ignore these losers. They're bitter and couldn't hack it. Move on." When an occasional article pointed out that the schools were pumping out too many grads, reader comments were full of schadenfreude/sheer glee at the lawyer's failure to land a job. Unfortunately, people only pay attention when someone with credentials speaks up on an issue. Which is why I am glad that the New York Times decided to publish several articles on the law school pigs.

  2. In my view, the jury is still out on whether these guys are allies-from-within or whether they are trying to steer the anti-law-school movement into the safe harbor of cosmetic reform. I have got to admit, I appreciate that Campos posts daily and his critique seems strong.

    It is revealing that Brian Leiter, that pompous con artist and scourge of the scambloggers, praises Tamanaha, but reviles Campos. Maybe because Campos has had the integrity to call the whole law school enterprise a "scam," a word I have never heard Tamanaha use.

    I don't think it matters if they quit or not as long as they say loudly, clearly, and publicly that law school is a scam enterprise.

    1. You are correct that I earn my living off of this business--and can be criticized for this reason.

      However, you are wrong that I only started writing critically about law schools after the scam blog movement emerged. Here are few examples from 2006 and 2007 (followed by many more):

      I realize that you don't really care, of course.

      Brian Tamanaha

  3. Oh dear professor,

    I absolutely stand corrected on this point. These three links alone prove without any doubt that you wrote "critically" of law schools before the scam blogs began in earnest. I apologize for my oversight and assertion.

    Unfortunately, I do care and so I wish to reassert my main point. As you have admitted, you knew or at least alluded to the fact that what the schools were doing was wrong but you continued to personally benefit from it.

    Have you no shame?

    Was any of your "critical writing" followed by any kind of real action beyond a blog post?

    Did you feel any personal responsibility for it?

    You mentioned social justice in one of your blog posts, but where was your contribution towards improving it?

    Didn't you realize that schools were, and this is my word choice, "unjustly" raising tuition "every year" like the blog post you cited first? It appears that you did.

    Did you raise these concerns with the power and decision making structure of your school?

    Did you go on an education campaign with prospective students when they visited the campus?

    Did you object to or reject any kind of salary increases for yourself from these, to use your fiery words, "unannounced" tuition increasers?

    Oh wait, let's look at the closing lines of the second blog post you cited, and I quote,

    "While on the subject, perhaps we should also examine how law schools have collaborated through the accreditation process to restrict lower-cost competition from for-profit law schools, and to raise the perks and pay of law school administrators and professors....On second thought, never mind the conference."

    I'm guessing the answers to my follow up question is that no, you didn't take action. In fact, that last line "oh never mind," is such a witty hint hint to the reader. I am sure that your permanently indebted former students would get the joke at their expense.

    Your level of effort is the same that should be expected out of any law professor, you squawk out a question like the parrot on a cartoon captain's shoulder to get your treasured cracker (in your case I'm assuming there was a pay increase from the time you noticed the situation to now). You didn't do anything about it that might have been within your realm of control.

    It's your inaction, your acquiescence, your complacency, your complete and utter lack of a moral imperative that I am damning with such furious, vitriolic words. That to me is a far worse transgression than anything I say or any of your "critical writing."

    At least the ABA and Henderson and the rest who continue to hold up the scam and defend it know better, it's the quisling nature of your conduct that bothers me so much...that you would allow yourself to throw your hat in with them when you knew better that, to me, is inexcusable.

    Maybe a movie will help you understand, here you are:

    At least the fictional Ernst Janning was self-aware and at least the Nazis did it for love of country. What did you do it for? Love of reasonable, deserved compensation?

    I'm sure you've been working on that book of yours since 2006 as well, certainly you didn't do it now that this has become something of a cause celeb...on second thought, nevermind.

  4. I really started in 2009, when I was so upset about the 40 to 50K in interest that was going to be added onto my loan balance because of default.

    I tape recorded the telephone conversations and have posted them on my blog.

    They are with GC Services. A huge debt collecting company.

    I cannot seem to add you to my blog list now for some reason, but will keep trying.

    I'm an indebted shit basket case as you know by now, and my life is indebted shit after law school.

  5. DOA,

    Your confident assertions are based upon nothing. As a matter of fact I did raise these issues at my own school for years. I failed to accomplish anything.

    The only year that St. John's did not raise its tuition in the past twenty five years was the year I served as dean of the school. You can laugh at that as insignificant, but it is a fact.

    Yes, I do this job for the compensation. No--this situation has no comparison to Nazi Germany.

    You will continue your barrage of hateful condemnations, indulging your rage at whatever target you see fit--I know. It is pointless for me to engage with you.


  6. My "confident assertions based upon nothing" are really just pointing out in a ridiculous, hyperbolic way that you are profiting from the scam/industry that you bemoan. What always bothers me about this is the lofty position the legal academy constantly holds itself out to be when it's really no better than a well organized racket.

    It really doesn't surprise me that you failed to accomplish anything, you're a law's the nature of your trade (in the same way Monty Python thought accountants would, in general, make poor lion tamers).

    My entire point with you has with what I believe to be a personal moral failure on the part of an individual who knew better.

    Of course, to have a moral failure, you must first have a sense of morality. Once again, you did not deny that you are benefiting from this situation. I hold that makes you morally culpable. I hold that your position as a professor, should ideally, be a special one that requires a higher duty than is currently displayed by you and your peers.

    Here is another clip to illustrate my point:

    Warning! Based on your prior response, you would surely say this has nothing to do with slavery...on second thought, nevermind.

    I used a fictional character from a movie that happens to be about Nazis to illustrate a person in the same position for dramatic effect. In the above cited clip, a fairly fictionalized version of John Rutledge makes a point similar to a fairly fictionalized version of John Adams that I make to you.

    The targets I see fit to direct my "barrage of hateful condemnations" are the parties responsible for the current situation and those who benefit directly from it.

    Although for the sake of your reading comprehension level, I am concerned that you read my response in the comments as an assertion rather than a series of questions.

    Didn't you ever practice or respond to a real set of rogs? The only assertion I made was that you are benefiting from this and the rest was for clarification, colorful as it may be.

    I am actually heartened to hear that you tried to do something, so then I fully admit that I was wrong on many assumptions.

    So thank you for begrudgingly answering, but that doesn't change the basic fact that you are decrying a practice while you line your pockets with the money garnered from it (See the 1776 clip). I view this as fundamentally wrong. I personally know that I couldn't do something that blatant, but that is because of my own morality. What you do is, on some level, equivalent to going to the Chinese Apple factory to buy your iPhone while the workers fling themselves from the roof all around you.

    I'm sure that you wouldn't see the situation of many law students right now that severely, but you're a law professor so I wouldn't expect you to have the capacity or understanding to get my point.

    And you may also understand why I would have the audacity to question you and your fellow professors on this point.

    Or were you going to donate all of the proceeds from your upcoming scholarly tome, and I say this knowing it's an academic release so that amounts to about $400 bucks, to a cause such as Law School Transparency (even though that has less of a chance at improving the situation than your ideas)? Were you going to request a freeze or decrease in your salary knowing the source, even if someone else would call it insignificant?

    Correct me if I'm wrong.

  7. Screw the law graduate, I like the graphic presentation of your material, as it's one of your blog's best features.