The newbie JDs suing 15 of their alma maters for alleged fraud in presenting employment statistics are gaining both. Their lawsuits had and still have a ton of coverage in legal, business, and general press. In addition, they are learning about how courts perceive what evidence is sufficient and what is material.
However, the plaintiffs, represented by Frank Raimond, aren't doing so hot in the court of law. THE NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL discusses the three-hour meeting New York Supreme Court Justice David Schmidt had on August 21 with Raimond and Skadden Arps defense attorney Russell Jackson. The lawsuit is the one against Brooklyn Law School. Overall, Justice Schmidt indicated skepticism about the merit of the case. He questioned whether the plaintiff had presented appropriate and material evidence that the law school sought to misrepresent job placement data.
Other courts of law have tossed similar cases, although they can be appealed. The clever among the plaintiffs will use this experience as the platform for Plan C, D, E, or F. Plan A might have been to earn a living practicing law. Plan B might have been to gain the satisfaction and perhaps some money winning a lawsuit. Alternate plans could include:
- Establishing an advocacy organization associated with justice or legal education. The position of Executive Director could bring in a six-figure salary, plus the fun of travel and delivering keynote addresses.
- Obtaining funding for a documentary on the litigation and/or the Lost Generation of lawyers.
- Launching an NGO about over-education around the globe. Funding could provide jobs for both plaintiff and friends.
When I went to Harvard Law School, my Plan A was to study law. I left as a 1L to write about legal issues both in public affairs settings and quasi journalistic. Since then, I only pursue a Plan A to test out the waters on how alternates might pan out.