Law School on Trial Over Employment Stats of Grads

Thomas Jefferson School of Law (TJSL), an independent law school located in San Diego, California, is being sued.  The claim is that the law school inflated its employment statistics.  So, what’s new?  There have been such allegations, and cases brought before.

What’s different this time is that this case is going to trial.

According to the legal site Above the Law:

  • While many other law schools have been taken to court over issues similar to the ones presented in the Alaburda case, never before has a law school been forced to actually stand trial for allegedly inflating its employment statistics. This is historic.

As the American Bar Association Journal put it:

  • The four plaintiffs allege the school violated California law regarding unfair business practices, false advertising and consumer protection, and committed the torts of intentional fraud, negligent misrepresentation and negligence.

Judge Joel M. Pressman of the Superior Court wrote in his decision that:

  • “[The four] Plaintiffs have all stated they believed that the employment statistics in U.S. News & World Report reflected the status of graduates who either worked in a professional capacity, worked as attorneys or worked in law-related jobs.”

Pressman looked to ‘the ‘methodology’ section in U.S. News & World Report.  “It states: ‘Employed graduates includes those reported as working or pursuing graduate degrees.’”  In other words, ‘Employed graduates’ doesn’t necessary mean that the graduates are employed as lawyers (or doing law-related work).

However, even though the four plaintiffs may not have read or understood the ‘fine print’ (By the way, should we worry about future lawyers who do not read or understand the fine print?), they may still win their case against the law school.

Pressman writes in his decision that:

  • The ‘methodology’ section in U.S. News & World Report is not necessarily dispositive.
  • A reasonable consumer would not believe employment figures included any and all employment, which would render the figure meaningless in the context of a legal education. A reasonable consumer expects the employment figure to include graduates who work in law-related jobs.

The law school tried to ward off the allegations by looking to an out-of-state (out of CA, that is) case, Gomez-Jimenez v. New York Law School, arguing “that plaintiffs could have conducted a reasonable investigation to determine the relevant information regarding the employment numbers.” Pressman responded that the Gomez case is not binding on the court (because it was decided out-of-state) and, in any event, in Gomez, no one alleged that there were inflated employment figures (and so the facts of Gomez are ‘distinguishable’ from the facts in the case against TJSL).

Among TJSL’s other arguments was this one:  that the plaintiffs had considered other factors – in addition to the employment figures – when making their choices about law school; factors including cost, ABA approval and location.

Pressman answered that “plaintiffs do not need to show that the misrepresentation was the sole or predominant or decisive factor.” Rather, there is a factual question that must be considered at a trial.

I don’t know how this case will be decided.  But something that I can say is this:  at least a few law schools are nervously watching this one.

For anyone interested, I’ve also written on Should I go to law school? and The NYT on the law school debt crisis.

Please Like me on facebook and follow me on Twitter

All blog posts are for information purposes, and should not be considered as legal advice.

 

 

 

 

Loneliness again

Last week, I wrote about The loneliness of divorce, especially during the holidays.  In it, I looked to an article (Happy Holidays? Maybe and Maybe Not) by Vickie Adams, a Certified Divorce Financial Analyst and Certified Financial Planner.  Adams discussed a close friend who had seemed to be in a great marriage; but in reality, there was much loneliness and suffering underneath.  I discussed lonely feelings that I had during my own divorce and how isolated I felt, as if I were the only one in the world going through a marital breakup; though of course many people were, and though as a divorce mediator and as a lawyer, I knew full well how common divorce actually is.

This morning I read a piece (The Dark Side of Loneliness) by Darlene Lancer, LMFT, Author, Speaker and Life Coach.  She shares that:

  • Twenty percent (60 million) of Americans report that loneliness is the source of their suffering.

And, as many of  us know firsthand, we don’t have to be alone to feel alone:

  • [Loneliness] can be felt while in a relationship or group. This is because it’s the quality, not the quantity, of social interactions that determines whether we feel connected.

She (and others) attribute loneliness in part to the use of digital devices, stating that “People spend more time on [them] than in face-to-face conversations.”

Lancer refers to her own experience:

  • Years ago, I believed that more shared activities would create that missing connection, not realizing it was something less tangible–real intimacy, which was absent in my relationship. (See “Your Intimacy Index”). Instead, like most codependents, I experienced “pseudo-intimacy,” which can take the form of a romantic “fantasy bond,” shared activities, intense sexuality, or a relationship where only one partner is vulnerable, while the other acts as adviser, confidant, provider, or emotional caretaker.

She discusses the connection between loneliness and shame, and how these feelings can stem from childhood experiences.

  • Meanwhile, children’s growing sense of separation from themselves and lack of authentic connection with a parent(s) can breed inner loneliness and feelings of unworthiness. “The awareness of human separation, without reunion by love–is a source of shame. It is at the same time the source of guilt and anxiety.” (Fromm, E., The Art of Loving, p. 9)

Feeling lonely, we may withdraw, which often results in greater feelings of isolation and loneliness.

Further, Lancer writes about health risks associated with loneliness, which I’ll leave you to read about, if you care to.

There are ways to cope with loneliness, though taking that first step may be difficult.

  • We really have to fight our natural instinct to withdraw. Try admitting to a friend or neighbor that you’re lonely. To motivate socializing with other people, commit to a class, meet-up, CoDA or other 12-Step meeting. Exercise with a buddy. Volunteer or support a friend in need can to take your mind off of yourself and lift your spirits.
  • As with all feelings, loneliness is worsened by resistance and self- judgment. We fear experiencing more pain if we allow our heart to open. Often, the reverse is true. Allowing feelings to flow can not only release them, but also the energy expended in suppressing them. Our emotional state shifts, so that we feel invigorated, peaceful, tired, or content in our aloneness.

It’s a fact – the holidays can be a time of loneliness; cold weather and less sunlight at this time of year don’t help.  But perhaps knowing that many others feel similarly can provide some type of comfort.  And maybe you can or will be able to follow Lancer’s advice, or other good advice that’s out there.  Perhaps tomorrow.  Maybe even today.

Please Like me on facebook and follow me on Twitter

All blog posts are for information purposes, and should not be considered as legal advice.

The loneliness of divorce, especially during the holidays

Vickie Adams, a Certified Divorce Financial Analyst and Certified Financial Planner,  recently wrote about the difficulties that many have at this time of year.  (Happy Holidays? Maybe and Maybe Not.)

She begins by talking about a friend who seemingly – or perhaps actually, at one time – had the type of marriage that others would dream of.

  • I have a close friend whom I’ve known for many years. She is always busy, dressed to the nines. I’m most likely to see her pulling out of her driveway, on her way to another weekend getaway or special event with her handsome husband and a smile on her face. One year, I watched them on successive days of the week go out and keep adding to their front yard Christmas display, until I thought it could be seen from outer space. I thought, “Wow, she’s so lucky to have such a great partner who takes such an interest and is willingly out there participating in these things with her.”

But, then Adams learned from her friend that all was not as it seemed.  The couple would be divorcing, and the friend shared how she was “struggling to regain her self-worth after years of put-downs, criticism and infidelity.”  What had appeared on the surface to be one thing, was something very different underneath.

Adams finds her friend’s situation to be a “kind of analogy for the holiday season.”

  • For weeks, we are bombarded with holiday images of people enjoying meals and activities with friends and family; exchanging beautifully wrapped and often expensive gifts; decorating their homes. We are shown constantly that some lucky woman out there somewhere will be the recipient of a fabulously expensive Lexus, complete with a huge red bow, courtesy of her husband.
  • The message is that everyone is happy and joyous and has an unlimited gift budget. The subtle underlying message is, there is something wrong with you if you aren’t having the same experience.

But of course, the reality is different.

I say “of course”, but I remember my own divorce.  I felt alone, and that I was the only one going through a breakup.  That I had failed, whereas everyone else was in a successful marriage.

My feelings were not matched by what I knew to be true:  Many people  separate and divorce.

Pretty much anyone who knows anything about American society, at least when it comes to the family, is aware that divorce is common.  And as a long-time divorce mediator, I knew that as well as just about anyone.

But, I felt like it was only me.  I think that this is why the post by Adams resonates with me.

Not only are there messages telling us that this is a time to be joyous, but we as individuals may tell ourselves the same thing, beating ourselves up for sadder feelings that are natural and predictable.  We may put up a front and tell others – neighbors, friends and even family members – that things are alright, when they are anything but.

Adams writes that:

  • While some people are actually enjoying the holidays, a larger number, maybe 40%, are thinking:
    • I just have to make it through, and I can file for divorce after Christmas
    • I’m only here because of my child
    • I’d rather be alone
  • But there is nothing unique about not enjoying the holidays. Advertising and people’s perceptions aside, the holidays can be especially tough for those in the divorce process or the newly divorced. For many, it’s a time of painful memories, what if’s, adjusting to new parenting schedules, or financial concerns.

It can be hard to remember, and harder to feel, but the truth is that many people are involved in a breakup.  (This is not to say that anyone else could ‘put herself in your shoes’; you are an individual, and that is to be respected.)  Your feelings are legitimate, and if you can keep from beating yourself up for having them, this difficult time may become slightly easier.

In separation and divorce, there is a grieving process to go through.  The changing dates on a calendar can’t change that.

Please Like me on facebook and follow me on Twitter

All blog posts are for information purposes, and should not be considered as legal advice.

‘Gray divorce’: How much of the growth in older people divorcing is due to the reluctance to try counseling, or skepticism that it can help?

Therapists have told me that when there is conflict, younger couples often begin therapy earlier than older ones. How much does this reluctance to begin contribute to Gray Divorce?

In 2013, a study came out entitled, The Gray Divorce Revolution: Rising Divorce among Middle-aged and Older Adults, 1990 – 2010.  Authored by Susan L. Brown and I-Fen Lin, both in the sociology department of Bowling Green State University, their research is revealing.

Here are some of the results:

  • The divorce rate among adults ages 50 and older doubled between 1990 and 2010.
  • Roughly 1 in 4 divorces in 2010 occurred to persons ages 50 and older. . . .
  • The rate of divorce was 2.5 times higher for those in remarriages versus first marriages while the divorce rate declined as marital duration rose.

The study looked at many factors and circumstances that may contribute to gray divorces. Some of them are directly related to “the unique events and experiences characterizing” the “life course stages” of middle age (50 – 65) and older adulthood (65+). During these stages, “many couples confront empty nests, retirement, or declining health, which can pose considerable challenges for marital adjustment. These turning points can prompt spouses to reassess their marriages, ultimately leading them to divorce.” (Citations omitted)

Other findings include:

  • Middle-aged adults are experiencing a higher rate of divorce than older adults.
  • Men and women 50 and over are divorcing at very similar rates (9.8 divorced men per thousand married persons; 10.3 women divorced per thousand persons).
  • “There is some racial and ethnic variation in the risk of divorce among those ages 50 and older.”
  1. Blacks (20.5 divorced persons per 1,000 married persons)
  2. Hispanics (11.3 divorced persons per 1,000 married persons)
  3. Whites (9.0 divorced persons per 1,000 married persons)
  • “The divorce rate also differs by economic resources” – including education. Those with a college degree experience a considerably smaller risk of divorce compared to those with lower levels of education.
  • The rate of divorce is highest among the unemployed.
  • Older adults who are not in the labor force (presumably because they are retired) have the lowest divorce rate.

One factor that isn’t considered by the study is the hesitation by those who are older to engage in therapy.  While a younger generation has grown up with the idea of meeting with a psychologist or social worker, for people who are older the thought may have more of a stigma.  For older adults willing to try therapy and couples counseling, how many are skeptical or so uncomfortable that they are unable to fully engage in the experience, and therefore end the process prematurely, or otherwise hold themselves back and greatly lower the chances that it will be helpful in saving their marriages?

In addition to factors that apparently contribute to gray divorce, the authors discuss the “implications for individuals, their families, and society at large.”

  • It is likely that divorce has “negative consequences, particularly for those who did not want the divorce or who are economically disadvantaged or in poor health.”
  • “Divorced older adults no longer have a spouse on whom to rely and are likely to place greater demands on their children.” These children may be asked to serve as care givers in lieu of the absent spouse. “The strain of such intense obligations may weaken intergenerational ties. . . .
  • Adult children are particularly unlikely to provide care to their divorced fathers.”
  • “Some older adults may not have children available nearby to provide care,” and so “the rise in later life divorce may place additional burdens on society at large, as divorced individuals will be forced to turn to institutional” assistance rather than look to the family for support.

The study, which the authors acknowledge has limitations, is somewhat alarming. But having this information will surely help society deal with the consequences of gray divorce, which are likely to become more apparent over the coming years.

Please Like me on facebook and follow me on Twitter

All blog posts are for information purposes, and should not be considered as legal advice.

When a Conflict Can’t Be Resolved – Part 2 of 2

In Part 1 of this post, I discussed issues raised by Bernard Mayer in his book, Staying with Conflict:  A Strategic Approach to Ongoing Conflict.  As mediators, we talk about ‘Conflict Resolution’ and ‘Dispute Resolution’.  Our field is often called ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution’.  With so much of our focus on ‘resolution’, are we as mediators missing many of our (potential) clients’ concerns?  When we say to them that we help to resolve conflict, do some tune us out, because they know very well that not every problem can be fixed?

His answer is ‘yes’.  Many parties come to us with certain disputes that we may be able to help them resolve.  But frequently, they all also involved in ‘enduring’ or ‘long-term conflicts’ that aren’t resolvable, regardless of our skills and experience as mediators. These unresolvable disputes may, however, be manageable.

I’ll leave it to you to read Part 1 of this post as I continue now with the following question:

What does enduring or long-term conflict mean and look like for a divorcing couple; let’s say one with young children?   These parents know that they will have to deal with each other for many years to come.  Many such parents can reasonably expect frequent disagreements, tension, arguments, perhaps accompanied by pressure to give in and abusive language.

And so, if a mediator explains to such a couple that “I will work with you both so that you can reach agreement on all of the matters that you need to, so that you’ll be able to move on with your lives”, maybe that comes across to the parties as hollow.  Naïve.  Unrealistic.  Perhaps mediation sounds too good to be true, and so is seen as a waste of time and money.

In a blog post I wrote, Words Matter:  Out with ‘Custody’; In with ‘Parenting’, I discussed the importance of language when dealing with conflict.  While mediators know (or should know) this, we may be unclear in telling others about what we do, and what the potential parties can reasonably expect.  We can do better with our explanations.

Let’s see if this explanation rings truer and is more in line with the expectations of many people in conflict.  Let’s say it is for a couple ending their marriage.

  • If you’re getting divorced, I can help you to discuss the issues between you, and to reach agreements on all the matters you’ll need to, in order to be divorced under New York State law.  This doesn’t mean that all of your issues will be permanently resolved, and that you won’t have disagreements in the future, about your children, for instance.  Your kids will keep growing and changing, and you, the parents will change too.  You won’t always be on the same page.  But, part of my job is to help you consider what any agreements may mean for the future, to help you decide if they make sense for you.  And,  I’ll work with you to determine how to communicate in the future and handle questions that arise, to give you the best chance of dealing with them effectively and respectfully.

Recognizing that parties may be involved with an enduring conflict, and attending to such conflict, does not require ignoring the more immediate issues.  As Mayer writes:

  • A focus on enduring conflict does not mean that we are not interested in helping people resolve conflicts or achieve agreements on nagging issues.  We have an important contribution to make in this arena, and we ought not to sacrifice this important part of our work to our focus on enduring conflict.  But we also need to understand the role of agreements in enduring conflict.  They memorialize progress that has been achieved and create new and, we hope, more constructive platforms from with to continue the conflict t engagement process.  As we work with disputants on resolving issues in the course of an enduring conflict, we need to keep in mind–and help disputants to understand–that resolving issues does not end an enduring dispute.   (Staying with Conflict:  A Strategic Approach to Ongoing Conflict, pp. 269, 270.)

Please Like me on facebook and follow me on Twitter

All blog posts are for information purposes, and should not be considered as legal advice.

 

When a Conflict Can’t Be Resolved – Part 1 of 2

Mediators have long asked themselves, and one another, why more people don’t engage in mediation.  The process has so many advantages and few drawbacks, that it is difficult to understand why relatively few people are at least willing to try it.

Consider that mediation:

  • is generally a lot quicker than going to court;
  • much less expensive;
  • less adversarial, as parties are helped to listen to and understand one another, and then to work together; as opposed to the polarizing experience of litigation;
  • allows the people having the dispute to make their own decisions, rather than a judge deciding questions for them;
  • is voluntary, meaning that either party can end the process at any time; and,
  • allows for greater creativity in developing responses and solutions to conflict; because the spouses (or other parties) are experts in regard to what they want and need (as opposed to a judge who is a stranger, and one loaded down with a large docket of cases that doesn’t leave him or her time to fully consider many options).

What’s not to like?  What’s the risk?  Why oh why don’t we (mediators) have an overflow of clients? So many clients that we need to refer and turn them away in droves?  Bernard Mayer – mediator, facilitator, trainer, researcher – offers an answer to the question that I had never thoughtfully considered before reading his book, Staying with Conflict:  A Strategic Approach to Ongoing Conflict.

I have long believed that most people don’t try mediation when they are engaged in a conflict largely because:

  1. they don’t have information about what mediation is/how it works, and so “don’t realize what they are missing” (including that the results are binding, if the parties want them to be);
  2. going to court is familiar – think about the hundreds of movies, TV shows and novels involving a courtroom drama; and now see if you can name three dealing with mediation.  While people know that going to court (and perhaps to ‘divorce court’ most of all) can be a bitter and difficult experience, doing so still means dealing with ‘the devil you know’; and,
  3. family and friends are quick to suggest what may be conventional wisdom – hire the meanest, nastiest lawyer you can; feeling vulnerable, and perhaps angry, saddened, tired or confused, people follow that advice, usually not knowing what they are in for, and that there are other methods that may well work for them.

In his book, Mayer discusses another reason:

Perhaps some people don’t believe mediators when we talk about helping to ‘resolve conflicts’ (or to ‘resolve’ disputes).   Alternative dispute resolution may not be credible to people engaged in what Mayer calls ‘enduring conflict’ or ‘long-term conflict’.

Example:  If a mediator told you that s/he could help the parties resolve a crisis in the Middle East (take your pick of which one), you would probably be skeptical, to say the least.  Many of the conflicts are deeply rooted and have been going on for decades or longer.  That anyone is going to resolve (end/finish) such a conflict doesn’t seem realistic.

But what if the mediator said to you that, “I think I can work with the parties to help them manage the conflict.  I don’t have any illusions that I or any mediator can help all of the parties I work with to settle all of the issues for all time.  What I can do is assist them in discussing some of the most pressing and immediate problems; I may be able to help them reach some agreement(s) to improve the situation (such as for a cease fire or prisoner exchange during a war).  As a mediator, I can work with them on choosing ways to keep communication going, and help them to take advantage of opportunities to work together as the conflict continues.”

If the mediator is referring to a crisis in the Middle East, what s/he is proposing – helping the parties to manage the conflict – is still a very tall order.  But it has happened, as hard as that may be to believe with the chaos engulfing the region at present.

Enduring conflict does not only exist on the international level, or have to involve matters of life and death.  Such conflicts may exist between business partners,  teachers and parents working with a special needs child, communities and local governments, environmental groups and industry, two parents over child-care issues or religious upbringing; and of course, in many other situations.

Next time:  What ‘enduring conflict’ may mean for divorcing parents; and for the mediators working with them.

Please Like me on facebook and follow me on Twitter

All blog posts are for information purposes, and should not be considered as legal advice.

 

 

Words matter: out with “custody”, and in with “parenting”

I recently came across an article, ‘Custody’ and ‘access’ terms promote conflict, litigation. (Thanks to whoever shared it.)   The article appears on “AdvocateDaily.com:  Canada’s Legal News”, but is as valid for readers in the United States as it is for Canadians.

The subject of the article – how language affects conflict in parenting disputes – isn’t new. You may know that “custody”, the term found in many statutes dealing with arrangements for children following a separation or divorce, is the same word used in the criminal justice system (as in, “The suspect was taken into custody”).  It is also the same word that is sometimes used in regard to property.  But of course, children are not prisoners or property.

But, does language really matter?

Speaking from personal experience, I can say that one or two words can make a very big difference.  Many years ago, during my own divorce, I was absolutely infuriated when my wife’s attorney condescended to tell me that “Your daughter can visit with you.  You can have a room for her, with her own bed. . .”   I mean, how hard would it have been for that lawyer to have said instead, “Let’s talk about how the two of you as parents are going to raise your child.”  Like “custody”, “visitation” is a word associated with the criminal justice system.

The article notes that:

  • British Columbia is the first Canadian jurisdiction to change the terminology from “custody” and “access” to “parental responsibilities,” “parenting time” and “contact” in the province’s new Family Law Act.

How many of the states in the U.S. have done the same is a question I can’t answer.  (If you happen to know, please share that information).  But it is a step forward, and not an insignificant one.

One reason that the article made an impression on me is because a judge was quoted as saying:

  • “These words denote that there are winners and losers when it comes to children,” says Justice Mary Lou Benotto . . .  “They promote an adversarial approach to parenting and do little to benefit the child. The danger of this ‘winner/loser syndrome’ in child custody battles has long been recognized.”

When judges speak out, at least a few people tend to notice.  But, changes that would seem to allow for obvious improvements can be frustratingly slow; and, I’m not expecting the terms “custody”, “visitation” and “access” to be replaced nationwide anytime soon.

By the way, if you read the article, you will see that an attorney who is interviewed for it, Steven Benmor,  offers that “replacing [such] words with “parenting time” would be in the best interest of the child.”  [emphasis added].   Recently, I wrote about this subject for nyparenting.com, in a piece entitled Best Interest of the Child:  A Vague Notion.  The AdvocateDaily.com article does not define “best interest of the child”; but, it is interesting to see how this nebulous phrase – one that denotes an extremely important concept – is used.

Please Like me on facebook and follow me on Twitter

All blog posts are for information purposes, and should not be considered as legal advice.

Considering a custody battle? Ask yourself – and your spouse or partner – the following:

Larry Sarezky* is a Connecticut divorce attorney who has put together the following ten questions for his clients.

In my own divorce, my greatest fear was “What will our child go through if we [the parents] fight it out in court?”  Sarezky’s questions articulate many of the potential consequences, and they are serious ones.

If you are a separating or divorcing parent, they are well worth reading and thinking about.

If you are a friend or family member of such a parent, you may want to pass these questions along.

If you are a divorce attorney, you may decide to discuss them with your clients.

  1. Do you want your children to endure months of anxiety and uncertainty as to where they will be living and whether they will have the relationship they want with each of their parents and their siblings?
  2. Do you want your children subjected to interviews by attorneys, mental health professionals and court personnel during which they will be afraid and conflicted, and will feel pressured to be loyal to both their parents?
  3. Do you want your children subjected to the possibility of inquiry by these professionals about the most personal aspects of their lives including their fears and frailties?
  4. Clinical studies have shown that high conflict between parents exposes children to serious psychological harm. Do you want to risk your children developing emotional disorders as a result of your high-conflict custody battle?
  5. Do you want your inability to resolve your differences to serve as a model of parenting for your children?
  6. Do you want intimate details of your life to become a matter of public record?
  7. Do you want a stranger deciding how much you will see your children, and how you will make decisions concerning them?
  8. Do you want a substantial portion of your assets used for fees of attorneys and expert witnesses with no guarantee that you will be happy with the result?
  9. Do you want to give up attention to detail that a negotiated agreement will have but that a judge’s decision will not?
  10. Do you want to engage in costly, time-consuming and rancorous litigation that can make future cooperation between you and your co-parent extremely difficult at best, and the resumption of amicable joint parenting nearly impossible.

* Larry Sarezky is a former Chair of the Connecticut Bar Association’s Family Law Section and an award-winning screenwriter and child advocacy filmmaker.  His articles on divorce have appeared widely. You can learn more about his efforts at:  https://www.facebook.com/ChildCustodyFilm/

Please Like me on facebook and follow me on Twitter

All blog posts are for information purposes, and should not be considered as legal advice.

The NYT on The Law School Debt Crisis

In yesterday’s Sunday Review section of the New York Times there was an editorial, “The Law School Debt Crisis”.

The editorial – which I’ll quote here at length – begins:

In 2013, the median LSAT score of students admitted to Florida Coastal School of Law was in the bottom quarter of all test-takers nationwide. According to the test’s administrators, students with scores this low are unlikely to ever pass the bar exam.

Despite this bleak outlook, Florida Coastal charges nearly $45,000 a year in tuition, which, with living expenses, can lead to crushing amounts of debt for its students. Ninety-three percent of the school’s 2014 graduating class of 484 had debts and the average was almost $163,000 — a higher average than all but three law schools in the country. In short, most of Florida Coastal’s students are leaving law school with a degree they can’t use, bought with a debt they can’t repay.

If this sounds like a scam, that’s because it is. Florida Coastal, in Jacksonville, is one of six for-profit law schools in the country that have been vacuuming up hordes of young people, charging them outrageously high tuition and, after many of the students fail to become lawyers, sticking taxpayers with the tab for their loan defaults.

The editorial also states that:

In 2006, Congress extended the federal Direct PLUS Loan program to allow a graduate or professional student to borrow the full amount of tuition, no matter how high, and living expenses.

The consequences of this free flow of federal loans have been entirely predictable: Law schools jacked up tuition and accepted more students, even after the legal job market stalled and shrank in the wake of the recession. For years, law schools were able to obscure the poor market by refusing to publish meaningful employment information about their graduates. But in response to pressure from skeptical lawmakers and unhappy graduates, the schools began sharing the data — and it wasn’t a pretty picture. Forty-three percent of all 2013 law school graduates did not have long-term full-time legal jobs nine months after graduation, and the numbers are only getting worse.

Much can be said about the editorial, which I would encourage you to read in full. My own thoughts turn to those who are considering applying to and attending law school.

If the editorial is correct, the government has made it easier for large numbers of students to accumulate more debt than they can handle. You might think that if you can get the loans, you must be ‘a good risk’; yet, the opposite may be true. Just because the loans are available isn’t a sign that it makes sense to take them.

If the editorial is correct, law schools have taken advantage by raising tuition fees, and by being less than forthcoming about what incoming students can expect once they graduate. It is understandable to think of educational institutions in only positive terms, but don’t romanticize them. Yes, they should (and hopefully do) provide knowledge and help lead to opportunities. But it would be naïve to think that their interests and yours are the same.

This isn’t to say that the government and/or law schools are ‘bad’; rather, it should impress upon you that you’ve got to think and look out for yourself.

It takes work, but you can do a lot beforehand to get a good sense of whether becoming a lawyer would be right for you or not. An important part of the equation is money, but the considerations go far beyond that.

As I wrote quite recently, if you’re interested in law school:

Learn everything you can to make the best decisions for yourself.

Please Like me on facebook and follow me on Twitter

All blog posts are for information purposes, and should not be considered as legal advice.

A Divorce Mediation Case – Part 4 of 4: Agreements Reached & Reviewing the Costs

Bill and Angela have come a long way in handling their own divorce.  We have been with them through: The Decision to Try Divorce Mediation and the Consultation (Part 1); the Sessions on Parenting, Income & Expenses (Part 2); and then the sessions dealing with Assets (Especially the House) and Debts (Part 3) in which perhaps their biggest disagreement emerged, along with the strong emotions that came with it.  Here we will a) be with them briefly as the mediator helps the parties deal with remaining issues; and, b)    conclude by taking a look at the money the couple spent on mediation.

February 25th, 2016 – Session #5

  • After getting a value for the house, the spouses talked about other matters regarding the home. Now that the question of how much the house was worth had been answered, a serious disagreement remained about how much of that value belonged to Bill and to Angela; Angela was arguing for a 50/50 split, while Bill believed that he was entitled to a higher percentage due to work he had done on the house, and the increased value that resulted from that work.
  • Angela said that Bill was just making things difficult; that he knew she could buy him out at a 50% split, but couldn’t at any more than that. Bill denied this.

 

  • The mediator asked if they wanted to take a short break; neither one did. Then the mediator asked for more information that might enlighten the discussion. More information was shared, but no agreement on the house was reached.

 

 

  • The mediator brought up other matters, including:  filing taxes, whether/how to share in the case of a tax refund, or an audit; how to handle costs for writing the agreement, review attorneys and the court filing fee.  Angela and Bill reached agreements on these issues relatively easily.  though both were still upset, and Angela especially was concerned about dealing with the house.

 

  • The session ended, both still upset, and with Angela especially concerned about dealing with the house.

 

March 10th, 2016 – Session #6 (the last session)

  • On March 10th, Bill and Angela reached an agreement on the house, and tied up the remaining loose ends. Bill acknowledged the importance of the house not only to Angela, but to the children as well. And since Angela would probably be keeping the house for many years, during which time some expensive repairs were likely (on things that Bill didn’t have the skills to fix, though he was willing), he could come down on the percentage that he was asking for.  Angela expressed appreciation for the work Bill had done on their home, and for his willingness now to accept a lower percentage (than he had demanded earlier).
  • After further discussion, Angela proposed that either: a) Bill walk away with more of the assets than they had already agreed upon; or, b) that Bill take a small percentage of the house upon its eventual sale, which would likely be after their younger child graduated from high school. Angela agreed that she’d have to pay Bill that percentage from some other source of money that she would hopefully have at that time, or sell the house to pay him while incurring the expenses to sell the house.
  • The spouses reviewed their assets and talked further, ultimately deciding that Bill would take a greater share of the assets; an amount that Angela agreed she could live with.

And so, the mediation ended.

As previously mentioned, the “separation agreement” will need to be written. Bill and Angela have been advised by the mediator to each meet with a lawyer to review the separation agreement with them before signing it, which they have agreed to do.  Shortly after that, the separation agreement can be filed with the court.

So what did it all cost?

Mediation Fees:

  • $     50        Consultation
  • $3,300        11 hours @ $300/hr

$3,350        TOTAL

 

Other Expenses:

$1,500        Separation Agreement (needed whether people mediate or not)

  • The fees charged by an attorney to review the separation agreement should be relatively low, as this review is the only job that the lawyer will be doing for the client. There are no court motions, no depositions, no trial (and so no trial preparation), etc.
  • Court filing fee (needed whether people mediate or not)

In mediation (as in litigation), there can be other expenses, such as when spouses decide to hire an expert, such as a financial planner.  But, contrast a mediated divorce with a litigated one, and the difference in cost is often quite dramatic.

Please Like me on facebook and follow me on Twitter

All blog posts are for information purposes, and should not be considered as legal advice.