Category: News Feeds

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is an agency of the U.S. government created in the wake of the financial crisis of 2007-08 with the explicit purpose of protecting consumers in the (from the?) financial services sector, and hopefully preventing the generational clusterf*ck that was the Great Recession from ever happening again. Of course, since the CFPB was doing good things that helped American society become better for almost everyone, the Trump administration has been doing just about everything in its power to ruin the CFPB, like it has for the other federal agencies.

Remember that time the Cuyahoga River was so choked with industrial debris that it began sprouting tongues of flame five stories high, causing even noted enemy of the common good Richard Nixon to recognize that the Environmental Protection Agency should be created? Well, Trump put anti-science and pro-moron Scott Pruitt in charge of the EPA. When Pruitt was finally forced out for using taxpayer dollars like his dad’s bar tab at the country club, Trump then stuck coal industry lobbyist Andrew Wheeler at the head of the EPA, who’s also been doing his best to make America’s rivers flammable again. Likewise, the Trump administration put Rick Perry, who famously recommended that the U.S. Department of Energy be eliminated, in charge of, you guessed it, the U.S. Department of Energy. The number of Trump administration goons who hate the agencies they have been selected to lead is literally too long to include in this article, but suffice it to say, I could go on at length.

Now, the Trump administration is applying the same consistent strategy of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse to the student loan division of the CFPB. The Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, named only a handful of specific positions. Among them was the CFPB Student Loan Ombudsman, whose job it is to protect student loan borrowers and to “prepare an annual report and make appropriate recommendations to the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Secretary of Education, and Congress.” So, apparently, in Trump’s eyes, the perfect man for the job was student loan industry executive Robert Cameron.

Cameron’s prior position was with Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, better known as FedLoan Servicing, and better-still known as the place you call so that you can wait on hold for an hour before having whatever problem you’re having with your student debt ignored. This organization has been repeatedly cited for poor industry practices, and is among the top three companies that the CFPB’s student loan division receives complaints about. It is responsible for the mishandling of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program — if you recall, that program was supposed to forgive student debt for those who worked in public service or nonprofit positions and made loan payments for 10 years. The program turned out to basically give people false hope and stick them with an insurmountable debt after luring them into low-paying but societally beneficial positions. When I wrote about the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program this spring, at that point only 206 people in the entire country had actually received student loan debt forgiveness under the program, out of 41,221 who submitted applications to the program.

On top of being the place that tells you they put your debt in the wrong imaginary debt basket, so no, it won’t be forgiven, please continue to pay it off until you’re dead, Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency employees were given a “fail” rating on interactions with borrowers 11 percent of the time, according to the Department of Education. The student loan servicing industry average is four percent. “We’re ruining your life and being a dick about it too” isn’t the FedLoan Servicing corporate motto, but hey, I’m willing to let them use it.

Cameron had a job to do at FedLoan Servicing, and in all fairness to this guy, you can’t really blame him for doing it. You don’t blame the fox for being a fox, you blame the poulter who put him in charge of the chickens. Still, Cameron probably doesn’t belong in an important position within the agency that is supposed to stop people like him from doing the kinds of things that they did within the $1.5 trillion student loan market.

For most of our history, politicians, even Republicans, thought that the government could do big, meaningful things, and do them well. Richard Nixon believed that when he created the EPA. Theodore Roosevelt believed that when he destroyed the commercial monopolies that were then taking over segments of the American economy. Dwight Eisenhower believed it when he sponsored and signed the bill that created America’s interstate highway system. Yet, for the Trump administration, the only solution seems to be appointing the arsonist to be the fire marshal, and burning it all down.

Jonathan Wolf is a litigation associate at a midsize, full-service Minnesota firm. He also teaches as an adjunct writing professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, has written for a wide variety of publications, and makes it both his business and his pleasure to be financially and scientifically literate. Any views he expresses are probably pure gold, but are nonetheless solely his own and should not be attributed to any organization with which he is affiliated. He wouldn’t want to share the credit anyway. He can be reached at jon_wolf@hotmail.com.

As of August 1, 2019, hopeful parents in New Hampshire have reason to celebrate. That’s because Governor Chris Sununu signed into law SB279, a law expanding insurance coverage for fertility-related diagnosis, treatment, and preservation. Now not everyone has to work at Starbucks to get in vitro fertilization (IVF) benefits! Or at least not after the law’s effective date of January 1, 2020.

Twelve Years and Two Babies

I spoke to Catherine Tucker, a New Hampshire attorney specialized in assisted reproductive technology law. Tucker was one of the driving forces behind the new law. For her, Tucker explained, it all started 12 years ago when she herself hoped to have a child. She frustratingly underwent round after failed round of IVF. Ultimately, she was able to conceive (twins actually!). But she explained that she was one of the lucky ones. At the time, she was working for the State of New Hampshire and her health plan provided coverage for the multiple rounds of IVF. Tucker, however, was all too aware that the majority of the 1 in 6 couples in the state facing infertility were without insurance coverage that would have provided basic coverage for fertility diagnosis or treatment, much less IVF.

Tucker wanted to find a way to help others in this situation. She joined with individuals and organizations passionate about changing the law. These included fellow ART attorney Christine Hanisco, RESOLVE New England Executive Director Kate Weldon LeBlanc, and Fertility Within Reach’s Executive Director Davina Fankhauser, among others. Tucker then formed a working group to draft the bill and educate state legislators on the need for a law mandating that insurers provide fertility coverage as part of their plans. Tucker notes Boston IVF was also instrumental and deserves a special shout-out for all their efforts in helping get the word out about the bill.

While the group ultimately hoped that every New Hampshirite would have the coverage they needed, Tucker explained that certain compromises had to be made. The enacted law requires most employer-provided health insurance policies to provide coverage for infertility diagnosis, infertility treatments, and fertility preservation.

What Was Left On The Table?

The law, however, only applies to group insurance providers in the Granite State. It does not apply to individual policies offered through the marketplace. It also does not apply to “self-funded” health plans — only the federal government is entitled to make laws regulating self-funded plans. And while the group policy coverage includes IVF treatment that involves a couple’s own gametes or a donor’s, it does not include certain assisted reproductive technology protocols, most notably the transfer of an embryo to a gestational surrogate. Non-medical costs surrounding a donor or surrogacy arrangement are also not included.

Despite not including everyone or every treatment, Tucker reports that her working group is pleased with the ultimate content of the law.

Since When Did The “Live Free Or Die” State Go For Insurance Mandates?

Tucker explained that while perhaps counterintuitive, there is considerable evidence that a fertility mandate will save insurance companies, the state, and taxpayers money in the long run. Without the help of insurance, IVF can commonly run around $15,000 a round. That’s all out of pocket to a patient lacking coverage. Aside from being cost prohibitive for many, it has also been shown to lead infertility patients to make poor choices.

For example, when undergoing a round of IVF, patients are often faced with a decision as to how many embryos to transfer to achieve a successful pregnancy. Those without insurance coverage for IVF have a higher rate of choosing to transfer two or more embryos at once, with the hope that the greater number of embryos will increase the likelihood of pregnancy. Or, as some think of it, give them two (or more!) babies for the cost of one.

The problem is that twin and triplet pregnancies come with significant increased risks and increased costs, including high rates of pre-term births and associated complications. In fact, insurance carriers end up paying $105,000 on average for a twin pregnancy and almost half a million dollars (!) for a triplet pregnancy, versus approximately $20,000 for singleton pregnancy. The studies show that patients can make better choices (with better outcomes for everyone — including insurance carriers!) with fertility coverage.

Given the practical side of the law — saving money and supporting families — the bill received bipartisan support and passed the New Hampshire Senate unanimously.

The final result is that New Hampshire is the 17^th state in the country to pass insurance mandates for fertility treatment. Insurance companies and policymakers in the other 33 states may want to take a look at the numbers…as well as consider whether it’s the right thing to do for the growing number of individuals and families battling infertility.

Ellen Trachman is the Managing Attorney of Trachman Law Center, LLC, a Denver-based law firm specializing in assisted reproductive technology law, and co-host of the podcast I Want To Put A Baby In You. You can reach her at babies@abovethelaw.com.

Lance Mason, who served on the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, entered a guilty plea in the stabbing death of his wife, Aisha Fraser. “I wish to take responsibility for the crimes I committed. I don’t wish to prolong it or delay it, or hurt my family or Aisha’s family, any more than I have,” Mason said in an allocution doubtlessly crafted by his attorneys to be read for the court whether or not Mason believed it. Mason will agree to a life sentence, but it’s up to the judge whether or not the 51-year-old will be eligible for parole when he’s 71, 76, or 81.

Mason previously served prison time for beating Fraser and that’s when the chumminess of Mason’s colleagues bent over backward to make sure he landed on his feet.

The guilty plea doesn’t really add much to the tragic story, but it’s a good jumping off point to remember that networks exist to look the other way when it comes to abuse, and this pattern of protecting the perpetrators almost always ends in more violence. For Mason, he managed to get installed in cushy political jobs months after being sent to prison for beating Fraser so badly she required reconstructive surgery. As we put it last year when Mason was arrested:

Should the criminal justice system lean away from draconian sentencing? Sure. Would society be better off if ex-convicts aren’t permanently blackballed from earning a living when attempting to reenter society? Of course. But we’re not talking about someone starting over after serving their time. This is a tale of complicity, where apologists pushed a professional colleague through his “difficulty” with sweetheart deals and patronage gigs. Protecting Fraser was never a consideration while they worked to restore Mason.

Mason will be sentenced on September 12.

Earlier: Judge Beat His Wife While The System Bent Over Backward To Protect Him — Now She’s Dead

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.

If you thought the explosive lawsuit filed against Jones Day by former associates Julia Sheketoff and Mark Savignac was going to be boring once the initial shock of the allegations wore off, you’re in for more surprises. It was only last week that we told you about Sheketoff and Savignac’s case (not to be confused with the class-action gender discrimination lawsuit the firm is also facing), where they allege the firm’s non-gender neutral parental leave policy is discriminatory, the firm’s black box compensation system results in unequal pay, and the firm has a practice of altering firm photos to make their women attorneys more attractive/white, but the litigation machinations have already begun.

Shortly after the allegations in the complaint became public, Jones Day hit back at the plaintiffs, issuing a lengthy statement disputing the claims, calling the allegations at various points “legally indefensible,” “sensationalized,” “frivolous[],” and “gratuitous.” But now the plaintiffs are using that statement against Jones Day.

Jones Day partners Mary Ellen Powers and Traci Lovitt entered their appearances in the case, and asked for a 30-day extension to respond, citing their hectic schedules. Plaintiffs oppose the extension, arguing Jones Day should not be granted additional time to answer the complaint as their public statements reflect the firm has already investigated the claims, which they say the firm has known about for months. As reported by Law.com:

Jones Day’s contention that Sheketoff’s claims are frivolous is ”an extremely serious allegation against Julia as an officer of this court that surely would not have been made by a world-class law firm absent an exhaustive investigation,” the plaintiffs said.

The firm’s statement also provides “an inaccurate and misleading statement from (managing partner) Stephen Brogan discussing plaintiffs’ claims and smearing their reputations,” the pair asserted. “Defendants’ tactic of putting off litigation in court even as they attack plaintiffs on Facebook and Twitter also undermines the civil rights laws by deterring others from speaking out against discrimination at Jones Day.”

Plaintiffs also say that while Powers and Lovitt may have a lot on their plates, the firm still has a “small army” of lawyers to respond.

We’ll definitely be paying attention to all the twists and turns of this case as they develop.

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Last week, the stock market experienced its biggest drop of the year on the news that there was something called a yield curve inversion. This is when long-term debt instruments provide a lower return than short-term debt instruments. I have no idea what that means but two people I never heard of on CNBC said that a yield curve inversion is a warning that a recession is coming.

The news in the legal sector has not been good lately which also suggests that there will be an economic slowdown. The American Lawyer reports that law firm margins are tightening. And the news of LeClairRyan’s dissolution is also a sign that law firm profits are falling from their peak or will one day.

For most small firms and business owners, a recession happens when our customers are struggling to pay us but our creditors expect us to struggle so they can be paid in full. Here are a few things smaller practices can do to minimize the negative impact of a recession or worse.

Have a cash reserves and have a line of credit. This will ensure you will have cash to pay bills when your income drops. Ideally, you should have a liquid emergency fund for at least a year.

Set up a line of credit with a bank. If you already have a line of credit, request an increase on the limits. Do it now when you don’t need it because lenders will be very cautious about extending credit to people during a recession.

Ultimately, having access to funds will allow you to pay the bills and possibly make major purchases at a discount.

Consider starting a recession-friendly practice area. During a recession, certain specialties will be more attractive such as bankruptcy, debt-settlement, or contingency-based litigation.

But if you are a newbie, you should work with an experienced lawyer and split fees in a manner permissible in your jurisdiction.

Collect money from clients and collect it now. This seems obvious but I have seen businesses struggle or go under because they did not do a good job collecting from their clients or their customers. This happens for a number of reasons. Sometimes people are too busy to collect, thinking the client will pay on their own. Other times, people don’t want to anger the client and risk losing business in the long run. Clients have to be reminded regularly because if they don’t they will usually not pay.

If you don’t collect and continue to do work, you will run up a bigger bill. When you finally have the time and the nerve to ask for payment, the bill might be so high that the client will be too scared to talk to you. Or they might start nitpicking about that value you provided to them in the hopes that they can pay you less than what they owe.

But try to offer the client options if they really are struggling. If they are genuinely trying to pay, then give them a break and give them some time to get back on their feet. On the other hand, if the client is constantly breaking promises to pay you on Tuesday, it’s best to cut your losses and to cut them loose.

Reevaluate your marketing strategy and budget.  One of the biggest unknown factors in any business is marketing. So if you pay for marketing, you should evaluate whether you are getting your money’s worth. Have those newspaper ads or the SEO guy you hired resulted in paying clients? If not, then you should think about whether it is worth it to continue paying for them. If you threaten to cancel, you might be able to negotiate a lower rate.

But don’t cut back on marketing entirely. Many people will be looking to cut costs wherever possible and will shop around to see if a cheaper alternative is available. While attorneys don’t want to be known as the discount lawyer, consumers will be focusing more on getting more for their money.

Finally, be extra thankful to your referral sources and to those who have helped you develop your business.

Cut costs, but only when absolutely necessary. A recession may provide opportunities to purchase more for less. Look for deals on office supplies, insurance coverage, and telephone and internet services, as companies will  offer specials to get you to switch.

On some major expenses, you might be able to find a good deal but the drawbacks may outweigh the cost savings. A good example is office space. While you may pay lower rent, the office may be smaller, have less benefits, may be further away from your ideal clients, and may have undesirable co-tenants or landlords.

A recession may lead to better deals but don’t cut costs to the point where you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Finally, if you want to find a job, secure one now. Some people like being self-employed. Others do not and are self-employed out of necessity. If your dream is to work for someone else, start looking now while job opportunities are out there. You are doing yourself and possibly your clients a disservice by working a job that you don’t like, even if you are the boss. When the recession comes, jobs will be scarce as companies will not only institute hiring freezes and layoffs, they will be very picky about who they hire. As some of us know painfully well, if you miss the boat now, another won’t come for a very long time, if ever.

To ensure a smooth transition, you will need to do a few things. First, research the company’s hiring practices. During a recession, do they typically lay off the new hires? Or do they lay off more senior staff? Avoid positions that do the former because you are not only at a higher risk of losing your job but if you do lose your job, you might also lose the book of business that you worked hard to obtain. How do you get this information? You may need to ask recruiters or people who used to work for the company. Or you can ask the company representative directly.

Second, have an exit plan in place. Assuming you cannot take your existing clients to the new firm, do not accept new clients who are likely to take up a lot of time. Try to delegate work to support staff or contract attorneys and supervise them until the cases are complete. Finally, you may need to transfer the remainder of your clients to an attorney willing to take them. This will cost you money.

No one knows when a recession is coming, so it would be prudent to prepare for one. But at the same time, we should continue to live and enjoy our life. The time spent worrying about a recession is time that can be used to do something productive. Using the recession as an excuse to be overly cheap can alienate relationships which can do a lot more damage in the long run. So until that day comes, remember this: keep calm and carry on.

Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at sachimalbe@excite.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.

Ed. note: A version of this post was originally published on November 27, 2012. We republish it today as a public service to anyone considering posting this ludicrous “legal” notice on Facebook and Instagram, a product of Facebook.

By now, we’re sure you’ve seen the ridiculous copyright and privacy notices that have been popping up on Facebook and Instagram posts left and right — and if you haven’t, then perhaps your friends are simply more intelligent than the masses who’ve been fooled into believing they can override a social media giant’s terms of use.

We’ll put this simply to avoid further confusion: stringing together nonsensical bits of pseudo-legalese cannot save you from succumbing to the rules and regulations of the Facebook gods. On the other hand, stringing together nonsensical bits of pseudo-legalese is sometimes what law blogging is all about, so we’ll help our readers debunk the myths of privacy and intellectual property rights on Facebook and Instagram.

Aww, you thought Facebook and Instagram couldn’t use all the things you posted on their sites because of your privacy settings? Well, isn’t that just precious.

Here’s the copyright and privacy notice that’s been making the rounds on Facebook and Instagram (a similar one was circulated in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and earlier in 2019):

Don’t forget tomorrow starts the new Facebook rule where they can use your photos. Don’t forget Deadline today!!! It can be used in court cases in litigation against you. Everything you’ve ever posted becomes public from today Even messages that have been deleted or the photos not allowed. It costs nothing for a simple copy and paste, better safe than sorry. Channel 13 News talked about the change in Facebook/Instagram’s privacy policy. I do not give Facebook/Instagram or any entities associated with Facebook/Instagram permission to use my pictures, information, messages or posts, both past and future. With this statement, I give notice to Facebook/Instagram it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute. NOTE: Facebook is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once it will be tacitly allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in the profile status updates. FACEBOOK/INSTAGRAM DOES NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO SHARE PHOTOS OR MESSAGES.

Thank God you cited the Uniform Commercial Code and the Rome Statute, or else you would’ve been totally screwed… except for the fact that you kind of already are. (By the way, the Rome Statute? Seriously? From where we’re sitting, the only crime against humanity here is that you’ve taken the time to post this gibberish on Facebook/IG.)

One thing that Facebook (and Instagram) freely admit is that once you’ve agreed to their terms and conditions — which you already did, by signing up to use their services — you’ve granted the company a “non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings).” That being the case, you may want to delete those incriminating pictures (even though they’ll still be available on the sites’ archives and backups, so good luck with that, everyone).

For those who think they can turn it around on Facebook/IG by updating their status, here’s some guidance from Snopes, which has debunked this hoax repeatedly:

Facebook users cannot retroactively negate any of the privacy or copyright terms they agreed to when they signed up for their accounts nor can they unilaterally alter or contradict any new privacy or copyright terms instituted by Facebook simply by posting a contrary legal notice on their Facebook walls.

If only contractual agreements could be voided by posting something akin to “LOL no” on Facebook or Instagram, perhaps we’d have a more peaceful world (or a much more confusing one); but whatever, no one really cares about legal mumbo-jumbo — except for lawyers — until they think they have something to stomp their feet about online.

So why are people’s panties in such a bunch? When this nonsense first popped up online in 2012, it was because Facebook changed its privacy policy. For the details, we turned to Kashmir Hill, ATL editor emerita and goddess of all things privacy-related:

Facebook is adding a clause to the data use policy that allows it to share “information with affiliates,” i.e., other companies that Facebook owns. Bloomberg calls the move Google-like, pointing out that it will allow Facebook “to build unified profiles of its users that include people’s personal data from its social network and from Instagram.” I think it’s less like Google mashing up everything it knows about a person in one basket and more like a typical corporate clause. But it does mean that Facebook and Instagram info may now exist on the same server and won’t be kept separate, meaning the social networking can now see everything it knows about you through a Walden filter.

For additional information, you can read more at the Not-So Private Parts on Forbes. In January 2015, ABC News got a quote from a Facebook spokesperson on this topic:

“We have noticed some statements that suggest otherwise and we wanted to take a moment to remind you of the facts — when you post things like photos to Facebook, we do not own them,” Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said in a statement, according to ABC News. “Under our terms (https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms), you grant Facebook permission to use, distribute, and share the things you post, subject to the terms and applicable privacy settings.”

And here’s the final word from Stephanie Otway, brand communications manager at Instagram: “There’s no truth to this post.”

That’s about it when it comes to your new and improved privacy and intellectual property rights on Facebook and Instagram. Next time you post, you’ll be allowing Facebook/IG to share your stats with other affiliated platforms. Build yourself a bridge and get over it.

Here’s a proposition for you: delete the things you’d prefer Facebook and Instagram not to see. Here’s another one: don’t pretend you’re a lawyer and spread completely meaningless information to all of your Facebook and Instagram friends. Here’s the most novel suggestion of all: if you don’t like the changes (which have been in place for years), don’t use Facebook or Instagram.

We hope you realize that this copyright and privacy notice means the same thing it did when it was posted almost eight years ago: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. You can’t change the terms of a legal agreement with a Facebook or Instagram post. Stop it.

But if you simply can’t help yourself, at least do something creative like John Mayer.

Instagram Quashes Photo Usage Rumor After Post Goes Viral [WWD]
Facebook Privacy Notice [Snopes]
Facebook privacy hoax making the rounds, again [CBS News]
Facebook Copyright Hoax Goes Viral Again [ABC News]
It’s A Hoax. Facebook Is Not Limiting Your News Feed To 26 People [Forbes]
What You Actually Need To Know About The Changes Facebook Is Making To Its Privacy Policy [The Not-So Private Parts / Forbes]

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Three years ago, in July 2016, New York administered the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE) for the first time. Back then, when bar exam results were plummeting and seemed only to get worse and worse each year, this was viewed as a welcome reprieve to the madness. After all, New York’s former exam was once known as one of the most difficult to pass in the country, but the UBE reportedly offered an “easier” way out for both improved pass rates and law license portability.

But did New York’s transition to the UBE actually help improve test-takers’ performance on the exam?

According to the results of a new study by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE), the answer seems to be no. Before we get into the results, here’s some information on the methodology that was used.

The NCBE study looked at performance on the bar exam in New York between July 2015 and July 2017, a time when pass rates increased marginally, examining performance on the bar exam by race, ethnicity, gender, and other background characteristics. The NCBE Research Department also considered how test-takers’ performance in undergraduate education, law school, and the LSAT correlated with their results on the bar exam.

So, what helped law school graduates improve their pass rates on the exam? Here’s a relevant excerpt from the study’s executive summary: “This is not to say that the pattern was perfect, but background characteristics certainly explained at least a portion of the improvement in bar exam scores after UBE adoption, indicating that improvement in bar exam scores was likely not due to the UBE.”

Here are some additional interpretive nuggets from the study:

• “[B]ackground characteristics are critical to consider when interpreting fluctuations in bar exam performance across administrations, specifically before and after UBE adoption in New York. We don’t have data to indicate precisely why background characteristics shifted, only that they did.”

• “The observed positive relationships between background characteristics and bar exam performance were consistent with prior research. Specifically, LGPA had the strongest relationship with bar exam scores, followed by LSAT scores and UGPAs.”

• “[P]erformance on the New York bar exam before UBE adoption was lower than performance after UBE adoption, however, these differences were largely due to differences in background characteristics of candidates taking the bar exam in New York rather than to the UBE.”

The NCBE won’t come right out and say it, but we will: Bar pass rates started to improve after law schools stopped accepting anyone and everyone, or at least lessened the extent to which they were doing so. As law school application and enrollment statistics started to level off or even slightly increase, there was no longer an excuse to keep admitting students whose performance and success on the bar exam would be questionable at best.

Now that the law school enrollment crisis of the past has been averted, hopefully future bar exam pass rates will rise with the improved background characteristics of students entering law school. After all, we must make sure that those who bet their lives and careers on a legal education don’t wind up in a worse position than what they started with in the first place.

Impact of Adoption of the Uniform Bar Examination in New York [NCBE Research Department]
NY’s Transition to Uniform Bar Exam Had Little Impact on Test Performance, Report Finds [New York Law Journal]

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Whether you’re returning to school, taking your kids to school, or missing how smart school made you feel, Legal Talk Network has the perfect podcasts to both educate and entertain. This month’s episodes include industry advice for solos and law students, explorations about diversity in the law, marketing tips, and a glimpse at the potential future of the legal industry. As a bonus, tune into Legal Talk Network’s conference coverage for conversations with notable guests like the co-founders of Fastcase and ABA President Bob Carlson. So grab your notebook and pen and take note of the wealth of legal knowledge you will find in these legal podcast episodes.

Fairness and Equality: The Current Landscape of Antidiscrimination Law

What is fairness and does it really call for everyone to be treated the same? Kimberly Yuracko uses her extensive research on gender equality to discuss current social issues and how laws surrounding these matters are changing.

The Unconference—A Viable Conference Alternative?

There are so many benefits to attending a conference but could the unconference replace traditional conference structures? Tune in to hear about the different types of unconference approaches and the pros and cons of these more informal, interactive events.

Scaling While Solo, with Erin Gerstenzang

Criminal defense attorney Erin Gerstenzang discusses how her firm has evolved, shares her vision for scaling her solo practice, and what success looks like. She also expands on the potential challenges that come with growth.

Would You Rather? But Legal

Joe Patrice and Elie Mystal answer all your random legal questions. They dive into a couple of hypothetical situations about the legal industry and discuss which path they’d rather take knowing what they know.

What Can You Do with Your Law Degree?

One of the biggest challenges for law students is honing in on opportunities that align with their personal and professional goals. Gaylynn Burroughs talks about her work at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and ways law students can get involved in similar areas.

Why Feedback Matters

You want your clients to have the best experience possible, but how do you know if you’re delivering a good client experience? Tune in for information about why collecting, analyzing, and acting on feedback is an essential practice for law firms.

Website Accessibility and the ADA

In Robles, v. Domino Pizza LLC, a blind man filed a lawsuit against Domino’s after he was unable to order a custom pizza from the company’s website and mobile app. This episode looks at website accessibility litigation and how the ADA impacts these cases.

The Future of the Profession Crossfire Edition

Two opposing opinions weigh in about the future of the legal profession and attorney regulation. One side claims the industry needs to adapt to the rapidly changing economy while the other side argues these changes might undermine the quality of legal services.

How to train your expert

Working with an expert or expert witness comes with its own set of challenges. Author and attorney Janet S. Kole examines the complex issue of expert witnesses in her new book How to Train Your Expert: Making Your Client’s Case.

Taking Ownership of Your Legal Career

How much of your legal career is actually in the hands of other people? Kimberly Rice explains the basics of business for lawyers and gives concrete steps for developing a business owner mentality.

Conference Coverage

AALL 2019: Fastcase 20th Anniversary

From the floor of the 2019 AALL Annual Meeting & Convention, guest host Bob Ambrogi speaks to Ed Walters and Phil Rosenthal, co-founders of Fastcase, for this special episode celebrating the 20th anniversary of Fastcase.

ABA Annual Meeting 2019: A Chat With ABA President, Bob Carlson

ABA President Bob Carlson covers the four primary topics talked about during this year’s ABA Annual Meeting in San Francisco, including lawyer/law student wellness, immigration, pro bono, and membership benefits.