Stop scamming ‘wannabes’

The letter of wannabe lawyer Robin C. Westmiller (May) of the So. Cal. Institute of Law, an unaccredited law school, is a good example of why California needs to require all law schools to be accredited by both the ABA and the state. Westmiller makes false assumptions that students at unaccredited law schools work harder than students at accredited law schools, that students at full-time law schools are supported by their “mommies and daddies,” and that their student bodies are more diverse.

No one qualified to practice law would make such statements.

I went full time to a top law school. I had a family to support with three children. With me working part time, my wife working as a teacher, and with student loans, I made it through and passed the bar the first time. Many of my fellow students were in the same situation. We had no “mommies and daddies” to help us. We just had the right stuff not only to get into a law school but to succeed, something most students attending non-accredited schools do not have.

In order to make extra money to pay off my student loans, I spent two years teaching at a California accredited night school, but even though I still needed the money and enjoyed teaching, my conscience bothered me and I quit. Most of the students were not going to pass the bar, and the few that did were for the most part doomed to be less than mediocre practitioners. It was apparent that the school was a scam exploiting unrealistically ambitious students for all they were worth, and I didn’t want to be a part of it.

Although some who have graduated from non-accredited schools have gone on to be very successful lawyers, they are so few that it doesn’t justify keeping unaccredited schools in the business of scamming wannabes. Despite the self-righteous protests by the operators of these degree mills, it is not only a fraud on the students, it is a fraud on the public, and Sen. Joe Dunn’s proposal to place these schools under the Department of Consumer Affairs, if not the best solution, is better than leaving them where they are.

A.D. Allen
Pacific Palisades

A different perspective

Having recently graduated from an unaccredited law school and having passed the bar exam on my first attempt, I have a mixed view. At the school I attended, the curriculum was thorough and demanding. We studied the same casebooks and summaries as those studied at ABA schools. The mid-terms and finals were prior bar exam essay questions. I believe that I received a legal education on par with that of any ABA schools and was well-prepared for the bar exam.

Despite having worked in an attorney’s office as a paralegal for more than 13 years, I would not have been able to attend law school full time due simply to my need to continue earning a living. Without schools such as these offering a part-time or evening program, I would have never had the opportunity to attend law school. Providing that opportunity to older working adults is invaluable and should not be hastily eliminated.

That said, the statistics showing just how few of the graduates from unaccredited schools are able to pass the bar exam should be of concern to all. In my own experience, I saw many students who failed to do most of the homework and failed to grasp the huge body of knowledge required in each subject and yet they were passed through to the next class with aggressive curving policies.

This is a disservice to the students. Having labored in the study of law for four years just for the privilege of sitting for the general bar exam, it must be crushing to not pass the exam time and time again. The legislature should focus its attention on truthful grading at unaccredited schools and full disclosure of pass rates rather than indulge in spurious generalizations about the quality of lawyering or the moral fiber of graduates from the non-accredited schools.

Most of these students, like myself, are older adults with much more life experience than the usual 26-year-old ABA graduate. In my case, I believe the quality of lawyering I now provide is sterling, as I have 13 years of prior litigation experience as a paralegal. Indeed, opposing counsel and judges regularly compliment me on the quality of my work product. As to moral fiber, I wouldn’t dream of doing anything to risk the license which I worked so very hard to obtain.

Unaccredited schools provide opportunity to a large body of older working adults. If their graduates can persist through four years of legal studies, pass the first-year exam, the MPRE, the moral character review and the general bar exam, they should have just as much right to practice law as anyone else.

However, the legislature is rightly concerned that many of these schools fail to provide their students with the tools necessary to do so.

Coby R. Halavais
Lake Forest

Make small claims ‘real’

With the small claims limit going to $7,500, we are talking real money. Isn’t it time we began having a real small claims court? As an observer of the small claims courts for many years and having been a judge pro tem, I find most judges feel they are part of People’s Court. They ramble on in a folksy sort of cracker barrel proceeding. The law is the last thing to apply to a case. Hearsay is permitted and irrelevant matter discussed at length. Landlords are considered part of the Taliban. If a tenant kicks a hole in the wall or through a door, this is “normal wear and tear.” All too often, the court clerk prompts the judge as to the law.

The courts have long held a lease or rental agreement is a contract. Article 1, §9, Clause 1, of the Constitution prohibits the states from impairing the right to contract. Small claims courts do so regularly. A lease allows one cat with the tenant responsible for any damage. The cat ruins the carpeting and over a thousand dollars is required to replace the carpeting. A small claims judge dismisses the clear language of the contract with, “You shouldn’t have allowed a cat in the first place.” Thus, the landlord is responsible contrary to the terms of the contract. A plaintiff cannot appeal but a defendant can. This is nonsense and denial of equal protection of the law.

I’m sure attorneys who have sat through the small claims calendar while awaiting to be heard on motions can relate their own horror stories. Letters regularly bemoan the practice of law by storefront “clerical assistance” and “form completion” outfits. The State Bar has done nothing, just as it has ignored the shoddy practice of law by small claims courts. This is an area where the State Bar could perform a real service for its members.

Bruce M. Stark
Seal Beach