Chuck Newton

Now Even Begging For Change Goes High Tech

There are still lawyers that refuse to use email in their practices, or to do their banking online. However, now we have the invention of Don-8r to replace panhandlers on the street.

Pronounced "donator", the computer is programmed expressly to collect change and be adorable.

The coin-fueled robot was created by the University of Dundee student Tim Pryde to help raise money for charity.

Lies And The Lying Law Schools That Tell Them

The New Republic magazine recently published Served: How Law Schools Completely Misrepresent Their Job Numbers.

I recently lambasted St. Mary's University School of Law dean for contradicting his schools reported employment rates in news paper interview as part of my post concerning the prospect and opposition of new public law schools in Texas.

The article points out something that most of us have suspected for a long time. Law schools are routinely lying in an effort to improve rankings.

They might not call it lying. Maybe it is manipulation of statistics. Regardless of the motive and the reasoning, it is at least lying by omission.

The problem is not that the law schools do not provide a valuable service, or are not fine institutions, or serve their students and graduates well. The problem is that applicants rely on the misrepresentations, sometimes to their detriment. In the least, law schools accept money to process an application from students who might not otherwise apply but for the lie.

And, I personally suspect, that most law school are also exaggerating their LSAT numbers, as one cannot doubt that there is LSAT inflation as to most numbers by most law school reporting.

The real problem in my mind is what type of example are law schools setting for their students and future graduates when the schools, by example, teach that it is alright to bend the truth, inappropriately manipulate the facts, and do whatever is necessary to win.

I have run into younger lawyers of late, several years from graduation, and this is exactly how they operate. They often rely on lies and distortions. Worse, to them it is not about right or wrong. The facts do not matter. The law does not matter. It is all tactical t them. There is always a difference of opnion, but this is not how we were taught in law school before the ranking system was king.

I recently called down a newbie working for Big Law who seemed particularily dishonest in his continued dealing with me. It had just reached the point where I could not take his work for anything. It was not based on one incident, but any number. My message to him was private, but resulted in a blasting email from his supervising partner praising his efforts, and stating how well he was serving his client. Of course he was serving his client by lying, intentionally misrepresenting facts, and misleading me.  Is this the law school's fault? I do not know, but it certianly cannot help. These young lawyers (recent graduates) are the law schools billboards.

The point is that if the professors and legal institutions that initially nuture students believe it is alright to bend the truth, to lie, to mislead, to misrepresent and to exaggerate then how can they not expect their graduates not to mimick this result? It might be analogous to religious institutions to teach their parishioners to sin.

It is an article worth reading.

And, if nothing else, when selecting a law school, maybe you should take the rankings with a grain of salt and choose the school based on what best fits your needs.

Is A Business Degree A Good Bet For Law School?

My daughter received her MBA while attending law school. I have to admit that I worked toward an MBA part time after law school for a while, but I had a family and I could not see how it necessarily benefited a lawyer already in practice. (Maybe I was wrong). I have nothing against business degrees as I believe they complement a JD. I believe it probably helped get my daughter a job.

However, when I was in college, BBAs were all the rage, and as a lowly political science major I was the one enduing all of the ribbing from the business student about what, if anything, one could do with a political science degree. My ongoing joke at the time was that I intended to open a political science store in the mall.

What I thought I had observed then was, despite the hype of a business degree and all of the money colleges were raising to build new business school buildings, that those in the business schools seemed to be the ones who never studied, were always partying and who referred to their classes as "B.S. discussions".

Now, I read in the New York Times that business, the most popular college major, might be a detriment to getting into and succeeding in law school, which is where a lot of business majors head.

Well, the article did not deal directly with law school admissions or employment after graduation.  It discussed a survey of the 21% of college students who major in business as maybe academically adrift. What the survey found was that business majors spent the least time of any major studying (less than a hour a day), have the lowest gains on measures of critical thinking, complex reasoning and written communication; a whopping 37% are unemployed or under employed after graduation, and 45% have to move back in with their parents or other relatives to survive.

Certainly there is anecdotal evidence of this when you look around.  George W. Bush found it impossible to get into law school, but he got accepted to Harvard Business School. Then there is Donald Trump. It is hard to argue with his success, which is more a measure of his tenacity and over sized ego. But, listening to him talk, is there any doubt that, despite the high opinion of himself, he has the lowest measures of critical thinking or complex reasoning among most CEOs.

The lack of stable employment certainly leads business students to apply to law school, but the demonstrated lack of higher order skills, such as critical thinking and complex reasoning will not help them much either on the LSAT or in the law school classroom. At least for undergraduate business majors it might not help them get out of their parent's garage apartments.

At least a law degree has with it a license that allows one passing the bar to do something, and from those without law degrees from not doing it.  A business degree has no such exclusion.

It might be an important consideration when thinking about pre-law majors. Maybe the joke was on me in getting a political science degree. But, maybe, the better choice might be engineering, technology, languages, or higher math majors. Maybe consider majors that interrupt your party time and that build those higher order skills.

Solo Practice University Begins To Work With Law Schools To Build Bridges

Solo Practice University, which is the number one online educational and professional networking community for lawyers and law students, as developed the Bridges program, which partners with law schools to help bridge the gap from law school to solo practice for its law graduates. It is a program that is intended to start before graduation for most law students.

I have thought about this problem quite a lot lately, with my oldest daughter graduating from law school in December, and as a result of the dozens of soon to be or recent law school graduates that email me for advice on how to make this leap from law school to practice. It really is the problem that can no longer be ignored.

I believe it does start with the realization by law schools that the overwhelming majority of their graduates will go out on their own, or associate with small law firms, where they are expected to be more practice ready, know in what areas they wish to practice, and have some guidance about how to succeed in this regard.

Law school clinics aside, law schools have not been very good in helping in this regard.

Bridges is probably a good name for it, because what the law graduate is trying to do mentally, conceptually, and educationally is to figure out how to make it across that void between law school and the actual practice of law. For most law graduates, that void is deep and uncertain. The consequences of jumping and missing can be devastating financially and emotionally, and law graduates know this. It is the reason for much anxiety. I hear it from them almost every day.

Bar associations and others are starting to recognize this void.  For example, The State Bar of Texas has created its Transition to Practice program.

And, it is more than just transitioning to a solo practice. This void in terms of practice readiness, an idea of practice areas in which to engage, and relationship building with the legal community is the difference as to whether law graduates can find law jobs more easily after graduation, especially if they are coveted top 10% of their graduating class (a category not possessed by 90% of the graduating class).

SPU's Bridges program will be unveiled at the 2011 Future Ed conference in New York City on April 16, 2011, and New York Law School will be the first to join in.

It is time law schools, especially, face the facts. Tuition is too high, the amount of student loans too much, and the commitment by law students too overwhelming to continue to ignore the issue of the lack of bridges or transition help for their graduates into the real world of law practice. This is just the truth.

Now, as a disclaimer, SPU does not pay me any money, but it does allow me to hangout in their network community to offer advice where I can.

Is A New Texas Public Law School Possible In These Lean Economic Times?

Texas, like most other states, is facing a monumental crises in terms of its budget. That obviously does not lend itself well to starting or funding new public law schools in the state -- at least currently.

According to the San Antonio Express News, the lack of substantial funding for the newly approved University of North Texas Dallas Law School is waning. The law school needs $4 million dollars a year from Texas to fund and begin accepting students. Yet, the Texas House of Representatives is proposing $2 million, and the Texas Senate is proposing nothing. The law school has already put off its entering class.

And, there is a struggle for the funding of a study for establishment of a public law school in the Texas Valley, which is the part of the state that does not have a law school currently.

I understand the argument. There are priorities to set when cuts have to be made, and we know the legal profession has not been a priority of Texas. I think this is unfortunate. The law is an integral part of how Texas and all governments function, and Texas needs cost effective education choices for those wishing to enter the field.

What interest me is the piling on that occurs in addtion to this argument. For example, Charles Cantu, the dean of St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio stating that based upon all economic indicators, the legal market is not absorbing all of current law graduates his school and other law schools are presently generating.

Of course, a public law school in the Texas Valley will not be a help to St. Mary's, which is based in San Antonio, has high tuition, does not much provide any substantial scholarships, and is stuck in 4th Tier status. But, the argument itself is silly. Texas is rapidly growing, and law school seats have not been increasing to keep up. The truth of the matter is that law schools, such as St. Mary's, have been doing an extraordinary bad job of creating a conduit or a bridge for graduates to enter the market. Law schools tend to shoot for the top 10% achieving easier employment, but apart from posting job openings, often tell students to go to Martindale.Com website, a general directly of lawyers, to find a job. It is tantamount to handing someone a big city phone book in times past and tell then to start cold-calling. Let us just say, it is not really a lot of help.

There is no shortage of law jobs. There is a shortage of law school doing anything effective, except for seeing how high they can jack up tuition and to play with rankings. There is no organized effort to create a deep relationship with the Texas bar members so as to get graduates transitioned more easily in the practice of law.

But, even if Dean Cantu actually believes what he is saying, then should not mean St. Mary's Law should stop promoting its law school, accepting as many people, and certainly stop graduating so many students into the market. That would be simply irresponsible for St. Mary's if what Dean Cantu said is correct.

Besides, St. Mary's reports that 89% of its graduates are employed within 9 months of graduating for law school. Now, that statistic is wrong, or Dean Cantu is wrong.

Now, I do have to admit that my youngest daughter applied to St. Mary's recently and was rejected. That is, of course, the schools right. What I found amazing in the process, however, was their website that strongly suggest that they do not accept or reject students just upon their LSAT and GPA. No, they look beyond that to the whole person. Of course the law school makes such claims because it wants to encourage applications for law school seats for which, by the Dean's own comment, there are no law jobs available. So, with a good many of my family having graduated from St. Mary's University, I contacted the Dean concerning my daughter's other qualificaions. The Dean's personnel contacted me back only to state that essentially the only thing that matters in the acceptance process are first the LSAT and then the GPA.

This is only important for this post because it demonstrates again a difference between what has been marketed by law schools, and what is later stated in contradiction.

I tend to believe the law school is engaging in situational facts and analysis. When it wants students to submit applicaitons and large review fees, the facts are one thing, and when they want to oppose a public law school that would directly compete with them, the facts are more gloomy. I get that this happens in life. I am just disappointed that it happened in this situation from the Catholic instituion of higher learning from which I graduated.

My bigger point is that these law schools need competition from public law schools in all parts of this state. I just wish the Texas budget was not getting in the way.

Is Your Conservative Commute Hurting You?

We already know that commuting to and from work costs you a whole lot of time and money. And, to all of you ultra conservatives out there, it gives everyone time to listen to NPR. But, it is not NPR that is the problem. (Really). It is the cause and effect of pollution.  

I am talking about the air pollution that results from the millions of cars and trucks that crowd our highways each day, and especially during "Fresh Air", "All Things Considered" and "Talk of the Nation". You know, during the heavy commute times when Rush is not spouting his hate filled, thinly racist, anti-women diatribe.

My carpet commute every day takes less than a minute. Although, when I have to drive into Houston or Dallas, Texas for Court I cannot drive with my windows down or open. The smell is terrible. It is hard to breath. And, the noise is deafening. (Besides, I drive a Prius). Occasionally, I see someone on a motorcycle in traffic and wonder how they can stand it.

We know that the particulate matter in all of the exhaust causes respiratory illness, heart disease, cancer, and and other health effects. But, the danger might be greater than that. Your commute to and from work might be endangering you. 

Researchers at USC have now linked freeway air pollution to increased brain damage in mice.

Now, I know you are asking what people are doing taking mice with them on their commute, but how else are you going to use the HOV lane.  

I know there are those that do not believe in commuting mice, NPR, USC, HOV lanes, hybrid vehicles, something called "science", and believe that researchers reporting findings are "telling you what to do." I am not personally sure when GOD created the freeways, SUVs, and the long, smog filled commute. In all seriousness, however, these scientist and researchers are concerned that commuters might be suffering similarly.

LA Times reports that "exposure to pollution particles roughly one-thousandth the width of a human hair has been linked to brain damage in mice, including signs associated with memory loss and Alzheimer's disease ..."

The study involved utilizing a technology that helped scientists simulate freeway air. It allowed them to hold particulates from auto emissions in liquid suspension in order to recreate a highway-like environment. Mice were then subjected to the faux highway air over long periods of time -- similar durations that humans breathe the stuff in their daily lives.

This pollution caused increased damage to brain tissue, in ways that appear similar to the kind of damage that causes memory loss and Alzheimer's. And the authors of the report believe that humans are prone to similar damage as well.

According to the Times, Todd Morgan, lead author of the new study and a research professor in gerontology at USC explained: "Our data would suggest that freeway pollution could have a profound effect on the development of neurons and brain health in children and young kids, especially those who attend schools built alongside freeways." (Oh Snap! There he goes apparently supporting public schools).

Could the long commutes we have established be contributing to the spike in Alzheimer's in our country?

Although unscientific, I have observed that those that oppose USC, NPR, commuting mice, public schools and science also tend to drive the biggest, gas guzzling and the most polluting vehicles. Or, maybe that is just my prejudice talking.

Regardless, we do know that those that oppose these things also tend to lobby against the EPA, which has been the only agency or organization that has long battled to get emissions standards in vehicles as tight as they are today.  And yet, even these standards are slight in comparison to most developed nations who have fewer cases of deases like Alzheimer's. But do not worry, because if your commute causes brian damage of this nature, the GOP has now proposed ending Medicare and Medicaid so that you cannot possibly be cared for in your old age should you contract such a dease.

In the meantime, I have a solution that might help. Close your traditional office, go virtual (or as virtual as possible), move your office home, move your employees, partners and associates home, and stay away from the rush hour commutes. Obviously, you will have more time, more money, less expense, less aggrevation, and an overall better quality of life.

Do I have an Amend?

Why I Care About Texas A&M's College Professor Ranking System

Sure, most of my kids will soon be through with college, and none of them have attended Texas A&M University. I greatly care about college funding and the cost of education in Texas, which is continuing to increase dramatically. But, I care about the University's college professor ranking matrix for the reason I believe it is anecdotal to why most businesses, why many law firm do not perform well, and why many attorneys fail.

According to articles published by various outlets, the vice chancellor of academic affairs composed a spreadsheet that listed the faculty members according to how much money they made or lost for Texas A&M. It calculated each professor's revenues based on tutiion each contributed to the school by their class, research awards, and grants, among other factors. So, for example, the greater number of classes the professor taught, and the more students in each class, the greater the revenue attributed to that professor.

As to each professor, if the revenue attributed to him or her was as much or higher than his or her salary, it was listed in black.  If his or her salary was higher than the revenues attributed to him or her it was red.

Of the 50 highest compensated professors, only five of them were listed in black, and 45 of them were listed in red. In theory, then, 90% of the professors where not earning their keep. Another way of putting it is that 10% of the professors were supporting the 100% of the falculty and the University.

The University did not really mean for the spreadsheet to be made public, and the methodology of the study has been greatly criticed.

The truth is that it is hard to both understand (or evaluate) a person's true value to an organization, regardless if that organization is a college or a law firm. But, what this spreadsheet indicates is that the overwhelming majority of people in any organization (in the case of A&M 90% of them) are not focused on what makes the organization profitable and comfortable for everyone. Most people neither understand how their job contributes to the profitability of an organization, or what they can do to earn their keep. The majority of lawyers, staff and associates are a drag not only ont he organization but on the 10% the earn most of the money for the firm.

From my experience over the years, I have come to believe that about 10% of the people in any law firm of any size carry the weight for the other 90%. They have to earn enough for the firm through their efforts not only to support themselves, but to support almost everyone else.

This is the problem with the traditional law firm model. The lead lawyers, the money generators, design these hiarchical organizations to keep them (the individual lawyers) as organized and profitable as possible. It rarely works out this way, but the point is that it results in the money maker wasting time managing people who do not manage well, and working to support everyone else instead of the other way around.

On top of this inefficiency, add all of the office space, supplies, equipment, benefits and other overhead issues to each employee's or lawyer's income and salary, and it illustrates well that if you are a profitable lawyer in a traditional practice, you are spending all of your waking hours working for other people ... and, not the other wasy around.

And, this is not really what was intended by the hires. In all likelihood, in the beginning, the lawyer had vision of bringing on people that moved the money upward, to make his or her life more comfortable.

This is what I learned years ago. The more people I hired, the more office space my firm occupied, the more advertising purchased built on itself, but my take home never got better, or bigger, or easier to make.

So, I downshifted. I eventually moved my operation home, only brought on people that in helping me must more often than not understand that they must eat what they help kill, to put it crudely.

There are a lot of lawyers that dream of being a kind of CEO, in which they sit behind their desks and manuver the puppet strings. They wish to overcome the lights on type of business as is the practice of law into a model where others generate the revenues for the master. Some are just see themselves as empire builders. Like the joke of the farmer who claims not to want to own all of the land, he just wants to own all of the land next to his land. But, these practices always seem to struggle, and they rarely work out this way. And, if their plan work out this way, their subordinates always tend to feel victimized.

At some point you have to come to realization that you can work less, and with less stress, if you will just take fewer cases and eliminate all of those "professors" in your life that are constantly in the red.