The usual contention of proponents of attorney regulation (which did not exist in the present form until the economic crisis, The Great Depression of the 1930s when attorneys started to aggressively protect their turf from competitors when numbers of paying clients increasingly shrunk) is:
- consumers need to be protected from incompetent and unscrupulous lawyers;
- with attorney regulation, consumers at least know that by hiring a licensed attorney, they get a provider who meets the minimum requirements of competency and integrity, plus is under disciplinary rules.
- civil rights litigation;
- family court litigation in:
- child neglect and abuse proceedings for defense of parents
- divorce litigation;
- foreclosure litigation;
- consumer debt litigation;
- prisoner conditions litigation.
- reciprocity agreements between the majority of states in the U.S. allow attorneys to get admitted, after 5 years of practice in one states, without a bar examination testing the law of the other state, while
- licensing information does not reflect whether a particular attorney was admitted with or without a bar exam, and
- attorney admission information is private and not disclosable to consumers on Freedom of Information Requests (I tried in New York, and will run a separate blog as to our exchange with the New York State Court Administration).
- rapidly shrinking middle class,
- shrinking market of paying clients of legal services,
- shrinking employment market for attorneys,
- states in an ex parte meeting with other parties that she has such a headache, refuses to recuse and recognize that she said that and lies about her statement in writing, then recuses when a motion to vacate her decision is made, and then reenters the case by assigning biased judges to fix the case for her, who also do not read anything because there is just too much evidence to read (judge Mary Rita Connerton of Binghamton, New York); or
- claims it is inappropriate for a litigant to even submit too much information - on a motion to recuse no less - to make the judge to "sieve through" all of that evidence against him (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York alleged magistrate - alleged because no order of reappointment was made after his term expired - David E. Peebles, the case is Neroni v Grannis in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, Case No. 3:2011-cv-1485); or
- accepts evidence in a trial by boxes in seconds without looking at it in the absence of a party, and, after losing jurisdiction over the case which was subject to an appeal, then prohibits access to those boxes by the appellate attorney and appealing party and, while that prohibition is in place, allows that same evidence to be taken out of the court record during the pendency of the appeal, so that the party who introduced the boxes can derail the appeal by claiming that the appealing party did not introduce the evidence that the claimant himself has stolen from the record - that is Chenango County Supreme Court judge Kevin Dowd and the now-appellate judge Robert Mulvey, New York State.
- accepted for publication not by peer-reviewed magazines ("peers" being scholars of the same level), but by yet uneducated subordinates, LAW STUDENTS (all law reviews are run by law student editors and staff), those same students who:
- pay tuition (and law professors' salary out of that tuition); and
- who are dependent on law professors in grading and recommendations decisions (especially where, for law review editors, such recommendations may be for clerkships with judges that may spearhead their careers, income and influence for the years to come), so their own future career depends on favors of law professors;
- who are not required to have a PhD degree to teach in a grad-school level university (law school).
Moreover, some professors skip even that, and simply fake the lower-ranking offers in order to obtain an "expedited" upper-ranking publication - and, according to Michael Cicchini's law review article, published online, professors claim (anonymously) in their own online forum that there is nothing wrong in such forging and that, given the stakes, every law professor should do that - which says a lot about ethics of law professors in general.
- nearly all law school professors are also "lawyers in good standing" in at least one state bound by ethical rules (that is a hiring requirement, you can verify it by searching any jobs search engine, like, for example, Indeed.com, for job requirements for law professors), on top of being bound by rules of ethics of not doing harm to students and engaging in good faith scholarship, not just self-promotion for money;
- that by submitting, at the employer's (law students') expense articles for publication that the professor knows is false - where the professor is soliciting an offer without ever meaning of publishing the article in that law review, the professor commits fraud upon his employer, the law school to which it is submitting the publication, and the law students who fund his submission fees; and,
- that many professors participating in that fraud are professors of legal ethics, setting an example for other students how to behave in their for lifetime careers.
- a presumption of DIShonesty and lack of competence of law professors, who are hired not because of the true value of their "scholarship" had any value, but because they managed to brush considerations of ethics and honesty aside and "move up the food chain" in law review publications, including by:
- waste of public/students' money;
- using their position of power over law student editors to elicit offers for themselves, or;
- openly forging low-ranking offers in order to cut through the chase and have their article submitted on "expedited review" to a higher-ranking law school, not to be published in general, as in - getting their word out their into the marketplace of ideas for the public to see, but to be published by a higher-ranking source in order to promote themselves in terms of their personal financial well-being and influence;
- and a presumption of DIShonesty and laziness of law school faculties hiring just based on publications in certain high-ranking schools mentioned, without reading them, and a presumption of DIShonesty of law school students who are law review editors and who later become law clerks to judges and judges.
Since law schools provide a public benefit - prepare lawyers who ensure, as part of lawyer monopoly, access to court which is a constitutional right of every American and non-American located on American soil - they are all subject to Freedom of Information Laws.
Law schools are financed from the following sources:
- tax exempt private donations - where the tax exemption is subsidized by the government, thus subjecting the law school using the subsidy to FOIL requests;
- state funds (for state law schools) - and then funding of such schools are public records as direct funding by the government;
- law school students' tuition, most of which comes from government-subsidized student loans - thus, also subjecting the use of such funds to state and federal freedom of information laws.