To consumers of legal services: when you are told by the government that you must choose your court representative from licensed professionals because they are better trained, you may be duped. The list of law professors working for a bar-prep monopolist.

Yesterday, I wrote about a class action against the bar-prep course BarBri, owned by West Publications Corp.

The federal lawsuit (the complaint is included in full here), as it was in the previous blog, contained allegations as to how BarBri uses law school professors to promote its monopoly:

I obtained names of professors who teach for BarBri from BarBri's own online advertisements, and then grouped them by states and by schools.

Here are the lists.

From BarBri advertisements of faculty, here and here, I counted 

• 54 professors from 
• 18 jurisdictions and 
• 38 law schools:

The 18 jurisdictions where BarBri hired law professors for its bar-prep courses (let's note that BarBri did not hire professors evenly from all 50 states):

1. California
2. Connecticut
3. Delaware
4. Florida
5. Georgia
6. Illinois
7. Maryland
8. Massachusets 
9. Minnesota
10. New  York
11. New Jersey
12. North Carolina
13. Ohio
14. Pennsylvania
15. Texas
16. Virginia
17. Washington
18. Washington, D.C.

The 38 law schools, with states and numbers of professors from that school involved in teaching for BarBri:

Loyola Law School	California	2
University of Califronia, Irvine School of Law	California	1
Pepperdine University School of Law	California	1
University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall)	California	1
University of Southern California Law School	California	1
University of Connecticut Law School	Connecticut	1
Yale Law School	Connecticut	1
Widener University School of Law	Delaware	1
Florida International Univeristy College of Law	Florida	1
University of Miami School of Law	Florida	1
Emory School of Law	Georgia	4
Northwestern University School of Law	Illinois	1
University of Illinois College of Law	Illinois	1
University of Baltimore School of Law	Maryland	1
Boston University School of Law	Massachussetts	1
Harvard Law School	Massachussetts	1
Seton Hall University School of Law	New Jersey	2
Brooklyn Law School	New York	1
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University	New York	1
Columbia Law School	New York	2
Cornell Law School	New York	1
Fordham School of Law	New York	2
University of North Carolina School of Law	North Carolina	1
Duke University School of Law	North Carolina	2
Ohio State University Moritz College of Law	Ohio	2
University of Pennsylvania School of Law	Pennsylvania	1
University of Texas School of Law	Texas	1
University of Houston Law Center	Texas	2
SMU Dedman School of Law	Texas	1
South Texas College of Law	Texas	1
University of Texas School of Law	Texas	1
George Mason School of Law	Virginia	1
Univeristy of Richmond School of Law	Virginia	1
Seattle University School of Law	Washington	1
University of Washington School of Law	Washington	1
University of Washington School of Law	Washington	1
Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law	Washington, D.C.	1
George Washington University School of Law	Washington, D.C.	3

The list of 54 professors teaching for BarBri, as advertised by BarBri today:

Brian, Robert	Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Loyola Law School	California
Chemerinsky, Erwin	Dean, University of California, Irvine School of Law	California
Levenson, Laurie	Loyola School of Law	California
Pushaw, Robert	Pepperdine University School of Law	California
Talley, Eric	University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall)	California
Altman, Scott	University of Southern California Law School	California
Lahav, Alexandra	University of Connecticut Law School	Connecticut
Harrison, Robert	Yale Law School	Connecticut
Scheuer, Luke	Widener University School of Law (DE)	Delaware
Carbot, Christopher	Associate Director of Recruitment Adjunct Professor of Legal Skills and Values, Florida International University College of Law	Florida
Stotzky, Irwin	University of Miami School of Law	Florida
Satz, Ani	Associate Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law	Georgia
Andieh, Robert	Emory School of Law	Georgia
Freer, Richard D.	Emory School of Law	Georgia
Holbrook, Tim	Emory University School of Law	Georgia
Redish, Martin	Northwestern University School of Law	Illinois
Bilz, Kenworthey	University of Illinois College of Law	Illinois
Sloan, Amy	Associate Dean for Academic Affairs & Professor of Law, Univeristy of Baltimore School of Law	Maryland
Lawson, Gary	Boston University School of Law	Massachusetts
Goldberg, John	Harvard Law School	Massachusetts
Klass, Alexandra	University of Minnesota Law School	Minnesota
Sebok, Anthony	Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University	New  York
Ponsa, Christina	Columbia University School of Law	New  York
Cornwell, Kip	Seton Hall University School of Law	New Jersey
Franzese, Paula	Seton Hall University School of Law	New Jersey
Reiss, David	Associate Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School	New York
Rossi, Faust	Cornell Law School	New York
Kraus, Jody	David E. Kaufman & Leopold C. Glass  Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy, Columbia University School of Law	New York
Neustadt, Frederick	Fordham School of Law	New York
Flaherty, Martin	Fordham University School of Law	New York
Arlen, Jennifer	Norma Z. Paige Professor of Law, New York University School of Law	New York
Kennedy, Joseph	Associate Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law	North Carolina
Metzloff, Thomas	Duke University School of Law	North Carolina
Salzman, James	Samuel Fox Mordecai Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law	North Carolina
Cole, Sarah	Ohio State University Moritz College of Law	Ohio
Dressler, Joshua	Professor & Frank R.  Strong Chair in Law, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law	Ohio
Robinson, Paul	University of Pennsylvania School of Law	Pennsylvania
Williams, Sean	Assistant Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law	Texas
Tilton-McCarthy, Lisa	Associate Professor, University of Houston Law Center	Texas
Forrester, Julie	SMU Dedman School of Law	Texas
Ryan, Meghan	SMU Dedman School of Law	Texas
Rensberger, Jeffrey	South Texas College of Law	Texas
Moll, Douglas	University of Houston Law Center	Texas
Johanson, Stanley	University of Texas School of Law	Texas
Alvare, Helen	George Mason School of Law	Virginia
Epstein, Paul	Univeristy of Richmond School of Law	Virginia
Ramasastry, Anita	D. Wayne & Anne Gittinger Professor of Law Professor of Law, University of Washington School of Law	Washington
Ahrens, Deborah	Seattle University School of Law	Washington
Said, Zahr	University of Washington School of Law	Washington
Scordato, Marin	Catholic University of America and Columbus School of Law	Washington, D.C.
Schooner, Heidi	Catholic University of America—Columbus School of Law	Washington, D.C.
Schaffner, Joan	George Washington University Law School	Washington, D.C.
Fairfax, Lisa	George Washington University Law School	Washington, D.C.
Schechter, Roger	George Washington University Law School	Washington, D.C.

These are some preliminary statistics.

I will post some more information about the professor, schools and conflicts of interests involved in law school professors of particular schools to teach at BarBri, and analysis of the statistics later on.

The lists above can be used by law students to verify whether their professors support monopolistic grasp of its employer BarBri in assignments of tasks at law school, as alleged in the federal complaint above.

It is obvious that law students, and law graduates, are entitled to see copies of contracts and earnings of professors from BarBri, to see which of the jobs, the law school faculty, or the BarBri faculty, is more lucrative.

It is especially important to see contracts of professors from both jobs if the law school is a state law school, and professors are state employees.

And, in view of information in the federal complaint that BarBri may be squashing competing scholarship, professors who work for BarBri may be participating in that squashing (of competitors' scholarship), to their own benefit.

BarBri boasts in its advertisements that the list of its "faculty" reads like "Who's Who".

Yet, in view of the class action, participation of professors in BarBri can demonstrate the opposite - that BarBri picks professors who are willing to bend to its ways.

Had I been in law school at this time, I would be really interested if what my professor is teaching me is the best available scholarship, or if the best available scholarship was squashed through BarBri methods, as part of the bargain between BarBri and participating professors.

After all, that's what BarBri was alleged to have done before, 

and by settling before trial, BarBri does not allow these issues to be tried and the truth revealed.

The issues are significant.

The federal lawsuit alleges that 

• law school professors and "student representatives" were "co-opted" to drive competitive and good courses out - like the Bar Secrets that was created by a lawyer and psychologist and produced a 16% higher bar passage rate than BarBri, 
• student government of law schools engaged in blocking advertisement of competitors;
• moles hired to discredit competitors;
• FBI agents hired to break into competitors' databases to obtain competitive materials.

Yes, those are allegations and, since the case settled, we will never know whether the allegations were true or not.

But, the allegations were there, were submitted under oath, and students have a right to ask whether what was alleged was really happening.

Here are some of the allegations - and I encourage my readers to read the entire complaint.

 And here are allegations about the Bar Secrets:

Law students, in my opinion, should be really worried whether 

• their law professors;
• student government and
• the law review student team

are selling them out because they are bought up by BarBri, into accepting a product that is costly, but not better, or maybe worse than the possible competition which was suppressed.

As a disclaimer - I personally did not take BarBri, I took a competitive course that was not mentioned in the lawsuit.  The course came on an iPod, allowed me to re-listen to the course as many times as I wanted, had superior books and materials with it, and cost about 3 times less than BarBri.  Since I am not posting this blog to advertise any bar-prep courses, I do not feel I need to disclose the name of the course I took.

Yet, I remember how my friends from law school were complaining that they are only hearing the lecture once, and that is not enough for thorough understanding, while I could re-listen any number of times, and my materials were very satisfactory and clear.

*   *   *

 Let's not lose the perspective here in all these details.

We are talking about training in the profession that gained monopoly for court representation in this country based specifically on claims of superior training of licensed professionals.

At this time, consumers of legal services are REQUIRED to accept help from the government by having to choose for their court representation - in civil, family, and criminal cases, including death penalty cases - from only government-approved individuals, while the government controls those individuals' livelihoods, and the government actually is on the other side of cases where the most significant loss of constitutional rights may occur.

The government imposes upon the public its "vetted" individuals by the fairy tale of the alleged superior training of those government-vetted individuals.

THIS is how the licensed professionals are trained, in the allegations of law students themselves (all plaintiffs in the class actions were law students and law graduates).

So, when we, as consumers of legal services, are told that we cannot choose a court representative of our choice because the government "helps" us by training an army of such professionals to "protect us" 

- while those same trainees are suing in court to get good training, alleging that the good training is blocked by a monopolist that is buying up their law professors, imposing false advertising, blocking superior training courses and individuals from the market, and employing various tricks worthy of a bad TV crime story 

- we have a problem here, a matter of public concern of constitutional dimensions, and the settlement, which does not reach the issues raised in the lawsuit, will certainly not resolve this problem.

The quality of training of court representative is a serious issue of public concern, and any efforts thwarting provision of the best possible training of those exclusive, monopolistic court representative, undermines our democracy and access to court and justice for every one of us.

Therefore, in the context of this blog article, my question is - are those "star" professors participating in the process of undermining our democracy by financially benefiting and condoning the actions of the monopolist in the training of this country's exclusive court representatives?

My personal opinion is - they are.  They are paid to promote the monopoly, and they do promote the monopoly, and the monopoly of BarBri hurts every one of us.

As I said above, I will provide more information about the professors teaching for BarBri, their potential conflicts of interests and some analysis of the above statistics, a little later.

Stay tuned.