Go To School, Get Ahead

[chr5648]

Re: Go To School, Get Ahead

I think that the situation in the law schools will resolve itself soon. Lawyers are looking over the fence at the AMA and they like what they see. Medical school enrollment in the US in capped to prevent the field from being flooded with qualified doctors. The system is artificial and it is designed to elevate doctor salaries. Something like this is coming to American law schools soon. The bar association is powerful and will not permit its power to be eroded by a perception that law is "cheap". If I was in a position to go to law school now I would jump at it. The gate will be closing soon.

This already exists, students who graduate from the top 5-10 law schools are guaranteed the top paying positions in the industry. Graduating from schools further down in the rankings doesn't guarantee you a top paying job like it did 30-40 years ago.

[wayiwalk]

Re: Go To School, Get Ahead

Ohm's Law is the belief that only by chanting his name can you reach enlightenment.

These culinary school scams or raw deals aren't much worse than what real colleges have been doing for years - back when I was struggling to find a job in engineering when I graduated in the mid 80's, the academic talking heads would be touting how there aren't enough students going into engineering, there's lots of opportunities in engineering, etc.

Nothing new to hear, here, regarding biased information about opportunities.

That students can now commit economic suicide more easily by graduating with $50K and up in loans, that's somewhat new, and that sucks.

But do these people really have their heads on straight? $45,000 load for the culinary arts? Or $130,000? Absolutely crazy.

[Munger]

Re: Go To School, Get Ahead

On law schools and the AMA model, I completely disagree. The lawyer lobby does not exist at all. It is probably the only profession of its type that has zero political representation.

Their is ATLA, the personal injury plaintiff's association, that would sort of suffice, but it was offset by insurance defense industry whores who are now all broke and out of business.

That is the joke: over the last 20 years, the total volume of legal work has shrunk by more than 25%, despite the growth of the population and economy, and the growth of number of lawyers by over 200%. As with most industries these days, the only exceptions are the large, old, well connected firms to the FIRE industry or Federal Government.

Case in point; workmen's comp in Texas used to be a Court action, then it went to administrative review and the remedies capped so that an attorney can't afford to take a comp case. As with anything run by the government, you now have a mixed pattern of corrupt employers, fraudulent comp schemes, groups of workers abusing the system, etc., and rational results are rarely reached.

With the old system, a fraudulent case was quickly proven as such in front of the jury, and an egregious case of neglect by the employer was punished, so as to effectively deter unsafe practices. Sure, there were some big verdicts that shouldn't have happened occasionally, but that is a GOOD thing, on balance.


Today, it is almost impossible to file a malpractice lawsuit against a doctor or hospital anymore. You basically have to prove your case before you even have any power of discovery, just to file it; and you have to find a doctor who will testify under oath that your case is a winner, before you can even file it! Medical malpractice claims are down almost 80% since that 'reform'; think malpractice premiums are down? think again, and pay up when you get that cost passed on to you. Another win for FIRE.

Several other industries have similar protections, (e.g. surveyors!?)

Tort 'reform' has completely removed the fear of financial repurcussions from corporate mismanagement as a deterrent.

Now big money, and their insurers, know it is uneconomical for consumers, or their lawyers, to sue them, unless the case is absolutely one in a million. Their incentive is to simply hide their bad documents, lie under oath, deny everything, and work the Plaintiff to death.

Insurance defense lawyer's rates have continued to go DOWN since the 1980's, in actual dollars.... most lawyers simply can't afford to take a plaintiff's case. If you get sued your insurance carrier will probably pay their attorneys under $125 per hour to defend you - after overhead that is very lower middle class. (of course, if the carrier gets sued themselves, and perceive risk, they will pay up to $900 per hour for their own defense - another win for FIRE). Total number of lawsuits is less than a third what it was in the 80's, and the total verdict amounts are down by more than that. Have your insurance premiums decreased by that amount? Bet not. Another win for FIRE.

I'll quit the rant; the bottom line is FIRE wins, lawyers have NO lobby, in fact are one of the prime victims of ALL the other lobbies, and a legal eduction, while incredibly useful in life, is not worth the cost unless you just absolutely love it, are simply better at it than most, and want to work harder at it than you would in most any other profession.

I've been very fortunate, and found my niche, but I am one of the lucky ones.

I must also add that just last week the Supreme Court gutted the ability to bring class actions. Now, companies will simply add an arbitration clause to their consumer contracts that states "All claims must be arbitrated by an arbiter of our choosing. Claims may not be brought on a classwide basis."

Guess what? Now companies have almost no incentive not to rip you off for $40 here, $120 there, etc, because (1) arbiters decide in favor of the companies that hire them over 95% of the time (FYI this is a fact -- not simply a made up statistic) and (2) the claims can't be brought on a mass, classwide basis (and there is no way a lawyer is going to take on a case where the potential payout is $50).

End result: game over. Another huge win for mega corps and a huge loss for consumers. A further reduction in accountability for mega corps is all we needed. You can look forward to being ripped off a lot more often from telecoms, cable companies, etc etc.

[DSpencer]

Re: Go To School, Get Ahead

The lawyer lobby does not exist at all. It is probably the only profession of its type that has zero political representation.

My mind is blown. Is this supposed to be a serious comment?

This is like saying that US Senators and Representatives are politically weak because they don't have an effective lobbying organization.

As with anything run by the government, you now have a mixed pattern of corrupt employers, fraudulent comp schemes, groups of workers abusing the system, etc., and rational results are rarely reached.

Sounds like the judicial system.

Sure, there were some big verdicts that shouldn't have happened occasionally, but that is a GOOD thing, on balance.

Big verdicts that shouldn't happen are a GOOD thing? You must be a plaintiff's lawyer, in which case they are good....for your bank account.

Today, it is almost impossible to file a malpractice lawsuit against a doctor or hospital anymore. You basically have to prove your case before you even have any power of discovery, just to file it; and you have to find a doctor who will testify under oath that your case is a winner, before you can even file it!

In which state is it almost impossible to file a malpractice lawsuit against a doctor or hospital? Finding one doctor in the country who will accept money to say what you want is not the hurdle you make it out to be. As for "testifying under oath", are you pretending that there are actually consequences for committing perjury (in the real world, not theory)?

I'll quit the rant; the bottom line is FIRE wins, lawyers have NO lobby, in fact are one of the prime victims of ALL the other lobbies,

The use the term "FIRE" on itulip is sometimes comical to me. Now instead of contrasting FIRE with the productive economy, we have uses like the one above. Lawyers are now the poor victims of the FIRE economy? Again I have to ask: is this a serious comment?

The President is a lawyer, the legislature is filled with lawyers, the judicial branch is almost entirely lawyers. These are the prime victims? This sounds more like a list of the perps.

Like FIRE, lawyers have an important role in society. To claim that the problem is that they are somehow being oppressed to our detriment is a concept that makes me laugh as it is, quite obviously, the opposite of truth.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Go To School, Get Ahead

Ohm's Law is the belief that only by chanting his name can you reach enlightenment.

[Munger]

Re: Go To School, Get Ahead

In which state is it almost impossible to file a malpractice lawsuit against a doctor or hospital? Finding one doctor in the country who will accept money to say what you want is not the hurdle you make it out to be. As for "testifying under oath", are you pretending that there are actually consequences for committing perjury (in the real world, not theory)?

No offense intended, but it sounds like you really have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Tort reform has absolutely eviscerated med. mal. suits over the last few years.

[c1ue]

Re: Go To School, Get Ahead

I hardly consider the tort reform laws indications that lawyers are being oppressed.

It is simply a case of big corporations - in this case likely the health insurance companies - paying their lawyers and politician/lawyers to roll over a less capitalized group of malpractice suit lawyers.

Similarly it is silly to say that various parasitic interests never prey on each other.

Why wouldn't FIRE get its pound of flesh from wannabe lawyers?

[flintlock]

Re: Go To School, Get Ahead

No offense intended, but it sounds like you really have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Tort reform has absolutely eviscerated med. mal. suits over the last few years.

Lucky for some lawyers there is more to the law than lawsuits. My brother in law makes good money as a corporate HR attorney. Companies today have legions of them. Even FIRE companies need them. I know more than a few and they are all doing quite well. ( perhaps these are other niche lawyers like cbr?) . I'm not defending what has happened to med malpractice( I'm a victim of it, and it killed my grandfather), but perhaps some of this is blowback from the years where you couldn't sneeze without some lawyer filing suit.

That is the joke: over the last 20 years, the total volume of legal work has shrunk by more than 25%, despite the growth of the population and economy, and the growth of number of lawyers by over 200%. As with most industries these days, the only exceptions are the large, old, well connected firms to the FIRE industry or Federal Government.

Case in point; workmen's comp in Texas used to be a Court action, then it went to administrative review and the remedies capped so that an attorney can't afford to take a comp case. As with anything run by the government, you now have a mixed pattern of corrupt employers, fraudulent comp schemes, groups of workers abusing the system, etc., and rational results are rarely reached.

I can't feel too bad that society got fed up with rising legal costs and has found "other avenues" to resolve some of these cases. Maybe its just a case of too many lawyers today, not unlike other industries that have seen their business shrink. I'll tell you one thing, after sitting on a jury all last week, the slow pace of trials, and the degree of protocol involved has virtually guaranteed that lawyers are pricing themselves out of a job. Perhaps some streamlining of the system could mean better access to the law for all people and hence more work for lawyers. Its not the hourly rate I mean, but the sheer time wasted in procedure. It makes everything too expensive. I know people have a right to a thorough trial, but at some point realities must take precedence over perfection.

[flintlock]

Re: Go To School, Get Ahead

These culinary school scams or raw deals aren't much worse than what real colleges have been doing for years - back when I was struggling to find a job in engineering when I graduated in the mid 80's, the academic talking heads would be touting how there aren't enough students going into engineering, there's lots of opportunities in engineering, etc.

Nothing new to hear, here, regarding biased information about opportunities.



That students can now commit economic suicide more easily by graduating with $50K and up in loans, that's somewhat new, and that sucks.

But do these people really have their heads on straight? $45,000 load for the culinary arts? Or $130,000? Absolutely crazy.

Agree. And I can't help but wonder how much some of these characters play a role in their own professional demise. Academic degrees are one thing. Things like integrity, work ethic, and professional demeanor is another. A friend was telling me yesterday at lunch how the younger crowd seems to have a hard time dealing face to face. They want to discuss complex issues over a text or email. Some seem to have a hard time not looking like spoiled punks regardless of their expensive degrees.

[flintlock]

Re: Go To School, Get Ahead

This already exists, students who graduate from the top 5-10 law schools are guaranteed the top paying positions in the industry. Graduating from schools further down in the rankings doesn't guarantee you a top paying job like it did 30-40 years ago.

And there was a time a Bachelors degree would pretty much guarantee you a decent job!

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Go To School, Get Ahead

I have one in college now. She's pursuing a degree that has no hope of gainful employment as a direct result of her studies (primatology).
I'm still happy to pay her tuition. College has polished her mind and sharpened her thinking, I see a beneficial result for her as a person.
She's attending a state school with a modest in-state tuition, and I'm fortunate to be in a position where the cost doesn't kill me and she's not saddled with huge debt after graduation.

Some of us still believe higher education has appeal other than vocational training.

[DSpencer]

Re: Go To School, Get Ahead

No offense intended, but it sounds like you really have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Tort reform has absolutely eviscerated med. mal. suits over the last few years.

Why? Because I don't think it's "nearly impossible" to file a med mal suit in every state? Is there some false statement I have made? Or have I just taken a position that you don't like?

I'm not denying that tort reform has reduced the number of med mal suits. I also will admit to having a bias that makes me think that generally speaking this is a good thing. I think there are too many frivolous lawsuits filed and too few consequences for doing so.

If an Affidavit of Merit signed by an expert witness that shows your "case is a winner" is so hard to get, wouldn't you expect the plaintiffs to win the majority of the time once they have this? In Ohio, where I live, the defendant "wins" the majority of cases. But winning for the defendant is still losing because the loser doesn't typically have to pay for the expenses of the other side.

Like the health care system in general, I think this area is pretty screwed up. Personally I would support a system with a "bad outcome" insurance system that would compensate patients for bad outcomes without fighting over fault or negligence except in cases of intentional malice. Even when patients win a claim they are paying ~40% to the lawyer and also expenses. I wonder how much of the money spent in the med mal system actually ends up helping an injured patient.

[don]

Re: Go To School, Get Ahead

I must also add that just last week the Supreme Court gutted the ability to bring class actions. Now, companies will simply add an arbitration clause to their consumer contracts that states "All claims must be arbitrated by an arbiter of our choosing. Claims may not be brought on a classwide basis."

Guess what? Now companies have almost no incentive not to rip you off for $40 here, $120 there, etc, because (1) arbiters decide in favor of the companies that hire them over 95% of the time (FYI this is a fact -- not simply a made up statistic) and (2) the claims can't be brought on a mass, classwide basis (and there is no way a lawyer is going to take on a case where the potential payout is $50).

End result: game over. Another huge win for mega corps and a huge loss for consumers. A further reduction in accountability for mega corps is all we needed. You can look forward to being ripped off a lot more often from telecoms, cable companies, etc etc.

We've all been brainwashed over the years with widely and repeated broadcasts of frivolous lawsuits that were "hamstringing" corporate America. The above was the not-so publicized goal of that sustained effort.

[cbr]

Re: Go To School, Get Ahead

Not to sidetrack too much, but I would submit that the only judicial reform needed was to properly incentivize jury service, and broaden the scope of matters handled by jury trial, at the expense of paternalistic governmental regulations or private insurance company arbitrary decisions.

To illustrate, I ask several questions:

1) do you feel that you are personally capable of making a fair and rational decision between the fully fleshed out arguments made by two parties who disagree?

2) do you feel that you could make a better resolution than someone in D.C. drafting regulations to try to anticipate every dispute in advance? or better than a government employee hired to resolve such disputes, with all the inefficiency, graft, bureaucratic inertia, and conflicted incentives such entails?

3) how many times have you served on a civil jury?

I hope I've made my point.

4) if you were truly shafted, would you rather face up against JPMChaseBank, AT&T, Microsoft, GM, Exxon, or the US Government with educated citizens like you serving on a jury to resolve your issue, with a locally elected judge with limited powers to overrule the jury, and regional appellate judge looking over the results; or would you prefer to take your chances with the government employees mentioned above?



I am quite sure my point is made.

The only problem with jury trials is the reluctance or inability of good citizens to serve. That was the only place 'tort reform' was ever needed. It still is.

I submit to you that prior to engaging in the popular 'citizens against lawsuit abuse' mentality, that you analyze the source of your feelings and the reason you have seen so much information reinforcing that view.

1) big, big money derived from the already large gross income and margins of the insurance industry fed a massive, comprehensive, long term and deliberate disinformation propaganda campaign against 'lawsuits.' this was supported by big consumer businesses and the financial industry as well.

2) the media feeds on sensationalist stories of wild juries, and are incentivized to do so by the groups above in no. 1. good results against big money make the news.

3) bad results against consumers and citizens, or the resulting radical abolishment of access to justice by citizens by all these regulations and tort reforms never make the news at all.

In other words, you have been propagandized. It's that simple.

Liabilities are down RADICALLY. Insurance premiums continue to climb. Go figure.

I can even devolve the 'classic McDonalds spilled coffee case' and you'd see that even the 'ridiculous' verdicts you hear about almost never end up in the pockets of lawyers or plaintiffs, and that in fact there is some basis for such a verdict.

Instead, it has become the american big consumer business model to DELIBERATELY defraud and bully consumers with credit scoring and simple beligerency, just up to the point of massive resistance, and rely on the fact that consumers simply can't hit you in the courts anymore.

Your cell bill ever seemed higher than they disclosed? Ever had a credit card fee or interest rate charge that didn't look right? Ever felt like that 'customer service' line was set up purely to wear you out so you'll shut up and go away? IT IS! It works.

Guess what, those in house HR lawyers have jobs because there used to be a threat that if you abuse your employees, it could cost you a lot of money; that is rarely the case anymore, and so those lawyers will slowly disappear...

Legal expenses were never more than a tiny blip on the gross insurance bill in this country; now they are even smaller. Are there too many lawyers? Sure. Definitely. Should the country be sending smart people out as lawyers to run FIRE scams like MBS and CSD's? No way. Should we have tax lawyers making a tax code that won't fit in a whole floor of an office building? No way. The list goes on.

These industries are a leach on productivity.

Productive, entrepeneurial business was the core of our success. The basic cultural morals and work ethics were teh foundation for this to be possible. Lawyers and juries in dispute resolution were not a leach at that point, but rather a matrix to emphasize and facilitate the strengths of that economy, and a hammer to enforce those moral and work ethics on the fringe that lacked them.

Over time, those morals and work ethics, and the entrepeneurial foundation has dissappeared; why are insurance and finance the most profitable businesses? they are leaches at worst, facilitators at best! Lots of lawyers grew into those margins, and some of the rest abused the system as well, but on balance, the lawyers arent the problem, they are just a symptom.

[don]

Re: Go To School, Get Ahead

I can even devolve the 'classic McDonalds spilled coffee case' and you'd see that even the 'ridiculous' verdicts you hear about almost never end up in the pockets of lawyers or plaintiffs, and that in fact there is some basis for such a verdict.

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm