Subscribe via RSS Feed

Dealing with the crash, Pt. 3

[ 63 ] October 1, 2013 |

This post is part of a series. Earlier installments are here and here.

The first two posts in this series looked at a school (Iowa) that has dealt with the crash in demand for law school admissions by drastically cutting its class size, and another (American) that has reacted by slashing its admissions standards. This post looks at a school that has done both.

Hofstra’s law school is a classic example of an institution whose very reason for being has become at the least highly questionable. Located in the hyper-saturated New York City-area legal market (there are about 15 law schools within 100 miles of its campus), Hofstra nominally charges a preposterous $49,500 in annual tuition and fees, even though half of the 2012 graduating class didn’t get legal jobs, and a grand total of 17% of graduates reported salaries of $55,000 or more nine months after graduation.

The 78% of the class that incurred law school debt had average loan balances of approximately $150,000 six months after graduation. That more than one in four graduates had no law school debt at all at a school with a nominal annual attendance cost of more than $70,000 says a great deal about the SES of the nearly one quarter to of the class that is paying — or more accurately whose families are paying — cash on the barrel for the privilege of attending the nation’s 89th-ranked ABA law school (out of 202).

Over the last three years Hofstra has, even more than American, defenestrated its admission standards. Three years ago the entering class’s median GPA was 3.58; this fall it is 3.14 (This latter figure is now lower than that of all but a handful of bottom-tier law schools with frankly quasi-open admissions policies). Over the past two years the entering class’s median LSAT has gone from 159 (77.6th percentile) to 154 (59.7th); a quarter of the new entering class has LSAT scores lower than those of the average test-taker.

None of this has stopped the school’s matriculant numbers from cratering — from 370 1Ls in 2011 to 320 in 2012 to 215 this fall. Apparently Hofstra has been losing out in the transfer game as well, with the result that total JD enrollment has fallen from 1,074 two years ago to 850 today.

As for actual tuition revenues, Hofstra is notorious for giving “scholarships” to about two-thirds of students who matriculate — actually straight discounts on nominal tuition — that more than half of these recipients lose, because retention requires remaining in the top 40% of the class.

Some back of the envelope math, taking into account nominal tuition, tuition discounts, scholarship retention rates, and overall enrollment, indicates that over the past two years Hofstra’s tuition revenue has fallen from approximately $37.5 million per year to $28.05 million. Because law schools like Hofstra tend to depend on tuition for around 80% of their operating revenue, (the rest comes from endowment income, annual fundraising, grants, and various subsidiary income sources such as building rental, CLE programs, parking and other vending etc.) this suggests that, keeping the ratio between other law school revenues and expenses constant, over the past two years the annual gap between Hofstra’s tuition revenue and its total operating expenses has increased from around $9.5 million to about $19 million.

The $47 million question, of course, was whether and to what extent Hofstra was running an operating surplus (i.e., to what extent if at all it was a “cash cow” that cross-subsidized other university operations) before its tuition revenue crashed. If the school was kicking ten million per year to central way back in 2011 (possible, but unlikely, from what I’ve seen of recent law school budgets) then it’s breaking even now, which is something central is no doubt quite unhappy about, but which doesn’t count as a major crisis — probably — for the school, at least in the short run. On the other hand, if Hofstra’s law school has, like so many other schools, engaged in profligate spending over the past few years while playing the rankings and prestige game, and was therefore only more or less breaking even or already running a deficit a couple of years ago, then . . .

Share with Sociable

Comments (63)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. matt says:

    I don’t see where you document hofstra’s operating expenses. In any case operating expenses are easy to cut. First, fire all staff members you can. Second, stop hiring new faculty. Third, stop giving tenure to any existing, untenured, faculty. As the faculty shrinks due to untenured professors leaving when their tenure clocks run out, so do operating expenses. If you need to speed this up just fire the untenured faculty. The result is that tenured faculty does a little more work but keeps their jobs and salaries. Call it the Seton Hall plan.

    • Snarki, child of Loki says:

      Just remember to remind those remaining tenured profs that, in addition to teaching ALL the classes, and grading ALL the papers, they’ll also have to scrub the floors and clean the bathrooms.

      Or perhaps the 1L students could be “persuaded” to do those chores. Didn’t Newt come up with a similar plan?

    • Denverite says:

      He’s assuming operating expenses of roughly $47M based on the 2011 figure of $37.5M at 80% of operating expenses.

      • MacK says:

        Paul Campos may correct me – but the issue is that the ABA rules limited the amount of revenue that a parent school could pull out of a law school to 20% of tuition. Privately, and I suspect that that he will acknowledge this, it has been an open secret that many law schools (e.e., Baltimore, CUA) have been taking up to 40%.

        Still it is fair for Paul to assume that the law schools have been playing by the rules.

  2. [...] post is part of a series. The first post is here.. A third post is here. Background information here. I got a particularly glossy and garish bit of law porn in my mailbox [...]

  3. [...] This is the first of what may be a series of posts about how law schools are dealing with the sharp decline in demand for legal education. (The second post is here. The third is here). [...]

  4. Denverite says:

    Paul, if — as I think is probably true — Hofstra’s situation is rosy compared to most of the fourth tier (many of which are stand-alone schools without a parent institution to subsidize operating losses), then what explains the fact that we haven’t seen a single school close (yet)? Is it that the crappy schools have basically just gone to an open admission policy at $50k per rube?

    • Paul Campos says:

      Couple of things:

      (1) The budget crunch has just started. 2010 was the biggest entering class ever nationally. 2011 was a normal-sized class based on a five-year baseline. Only in 2012 did we see real enrollment cuts, which have been seriously accelerated this fall. It’s a cumulative effect of course.

      (2) In some ways the bottom-feeder schools are not necessarily in as bad a spot as mid-tier schools like Hofstra. As you have guessed, the unranked schools have adopted semi-open enrollment policies. Even three years ago it was rare for a school to admit half its applicants, and 65% was considered extreme. Now you have lots of schools at more than 50% and a couple pushing 90%.

      Consider that Cooley (whose very name has more or less become a byword for the worst of the worst) cleared $18 million in profits excess revenues over expenses in FY2011. (Revenues were $123 million!). Now that was two years ago, and they’ve taken a huge hit in enrollment since then, but they’re probably a long way from going out of business.

      Which isn’t to deny there are schools facing an immediate existential threat. I’m sure there are. But you know how political campaigns never officially admit to any serious doubts of victory until the plug gets pulled, because of the cascade effect of doing so? Same thing here.

      • BoredJD says:

        It seems to be endemic to the profession. To everyone but partners (and maybe only a limited cabal of partners), Dewey and Howrey were jus’ fine until a few months before the ultimate collapse.

        • Barry says:

          “It seems to be endemic to the profession. To everyone but partners (and maybe only a limited cabal of partners), Dewey and Howrey were jus’ fine until a few months before the ultimate collapse.”

          I’d guess it’s endemic to all professions and corporations. You don’t want to be the CEO to says that things are going to go bust if they don’t. Time enough to make announcements after the crash.

      • Sherm says:

        Even three years ago it was rare for a school to admit half its applicants, and 65% was considered extreme. Now you have lots of schools at more than 50% and a couple pushing 90%.

        I’m so old, I can still remember when it was difficult to get into law school. Those numbers do not bode well for the future of the profession, although they make me feel better about my continuing ability to compete against younger lawyers. I can also remember when Hofstra was an up and coming law school, harder to get into than St. Johns, Brooklyn, et. al. How are those schools making out these days?

      • Barry says:

        “Which isn’t to deny there are schools facing an immediate existential threat. I’m sure there are. But you know how political campaigns never officially admit to any serious doubts of victory until the plug gets pulled, because of the cascade effect of doing so? Same thing here.”

        A commenter on this blog said a couple of months ago that the standard corporate response was to desperately hold on, because if you can avoid bankruptcy for just a little bit longer than one or two of your competitors, you could survive.

        I have a feeling that there are a number of schools in regional markets looking at each other, and figuring that if they are not the first or second to close, then they can get a share of those schools’ students and survive.

        And as has also been repeatedly pointed out on this blog and all scamblogs, the job prospects for professors, deans, etc. at a closing low-ranked law school are flat zero. Other law schools are generally not hiring, and if they are they have their pick of fresh scholars from elite schools, or experienced attorneys to adjunct practical courses. Law firms are laying off, and their first question to any applicant will be ‘what clients do you have *now*?’. In that position, holding on until actually being forced to shut down is the only move.

        • mpowell says:

          The just outlive your competitors aspect is probably huge here. I think it’s a really viable strategy, frankly.

          • Barry says:

            Yes. Imagine five regional schools, with 100 in their entering classes back years ago; now they’re at 80. One school goes boom and it’s possible for the other schools to take the students which would have gone to the failed school, and to put their enrollments back up where they used to be. If two schools go boom, then the other three might be in a decent long-term position.

          • TheGuy says:

            I suspect Hofstra is in better shape than local competitor schools like Pace, Touro, NYLS — this will likely become clear when everyone releases their admissions numbers for this year.

        • Michael H Schneider says:

          …the job prospects for professors, deans, etc. at a closing low-ranked law school are flat zero….

          The smart ones are spending a lot of time going to continuing education seminars with titles like “representing educational institutions in BR court”

          Personally, I’m thinking of shorting law school related revenue bonds

          • Barry says:

            “The smart ones are spending a lot of time going to continuing education seminars with titles like “representing educational institutions in BR court””

            No, because the currently practicing bankruptcy lawyers would be better at it. If they’re smart, they’re going through the records, and deciding which ones should be moved or copied to their private blackmail consulting archives.

            “Personally, I’m thinking of shorting law school related revenue bonds”

            There’s an old saying, that the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. The people running these schools have every incentive to hold on to the bitter end.

          • Sherm says:

            I’m thinking they are left teaching constitutional law and business law at the local community college.

      • MacK says:

        I think Paul Campos is right that there are schools in serious trouble. For all we know there are hot debates in limited groups going in right now as to “what we must do?” I half suspect that the first school to “pull the plug” will be a big surprise – but the schools that follow less so.

        • NewishLawyer says:

          Maybe.

          There are always going to be people who really want to be lawyers for a variety of reasons. Not all of these people are going to do well on the LSATs. There will always be schools to cater to this crowd*.

          I think the reductions we are seeing now are not among the “really want to be lawyers” crowd. We are seeing people with lukewarm feelings about being a lawyer deciding that the debt and economic prospects is not worth it. Some of these might even be fairly interested in becoming lawyers but decided against it.

          But there are always going to be people who really, really want to become lawyers and schools will find a way to cater to this crowd.

          *The comparable example would be medical schools in Mexico and the Caribbean that cater to Americans who really, really want to be doctors but did not do that well on the MCATs.

      • NewishLawyer says:

        Are those entering years or graduating years in point 1?

        I think you are right that it is the mid-Tier schools that are suffering the most. I say this as a graduate of a mid-Tier school (2011).

        I loved the faculty at my school and the students. Based on your stories and statistics, I am doing better than many employment wise. I seem to be in the middle employment wise at least among my anecdotal evidence. I’ve been a well-paid contract lawyer since 2012. A good number of my friends have positions at small or medium tier places. Some are the only associates for solo practioners. Others got jobs in ruralish DA and PD offices. Others are out of the legal market entirely. There are a handful of people with big firm jobs.

        In saner times, mid-Tier schools provided the lawyers who ended up in government and small or medium sized firms in their areas. They tended to have good local reputations.

  5. Hofstra serves no purpose. Neither does Touro, neither does CUNY. New York Law and Pace could drop off the face of the earth and never be missed. Merge St. Johns and Fordham, and give up on Cardozo while you’re at it. We really don’t need Albany, either.

    • Jasper E says:

      I disagree with you on CUNY. CUNY is public and has a strong public-interest focus. I could deal with the rest of the *private* institutions going away with CUNY left standing.

      • New York has a public law school with a strong public interest focus in Buffalo. Does it need two? Probably not.

        • Justme says:

          It doesn’t need either given the lack of public interest jobs. And while SUNY Buffalo might be cheaper than many other schools, it’s not cheap.

          http://financialaid.buffalo.edu/costs/lawcost.php

        • Andrew says:

          CUNY is definitely valuable, but not for any “public service” reason: it’s 12k per year per in-state residents. I still regret going to a higher-ranked school for sticker rather than go to CUNY. And as big an advocate for law school closings as I am, even in a world where the number of law schools was reasonably related to job opportunities, NYC definitely should have a law school. I mean, Florida has a lower population and has 5. California has about 5 or 6 I think.

    • MacK says:

      I disagree with CUNY – it is inexpensive and has attracted fairly talented students of limited means. I does have a decent rep.

      Tuoro – absolutely, ditto Pace, NYL – and merging St Johns and Fordham makes sense. Albany dies.

    • NewishLawyer says:

      I find it curious that you would merge third or fourth tier St. Johns with Fordham (because they are both Catholic?) but get rid of Cardozo which a respectable Tier II law school.

      Note: I went to law school on the West Coast FWIW.

  6. R. Johnston says:

    I graduated from Hofstra Law a decade ago, magna, Law Review. In a good market for new attorneys, with a very good law school record from Hofstra, the only reason I even got an interview for a decent job is that a professor with ties to the NYC Law Department directly intervened. I pity current graduates of my former school.

  7. Casual Observer says:

    I cannot believe that law profs are unaware of the scam. How do the law faculty not see the shipwrecks of lives that even the best students from most law schools now live?

    They are not evil people; just unwilling to speak up.

    • Denverite says:

      I think this is precisely wrong. I think that the very best students — those in the top two or three in the class — from a big chunk of schools (at least the top half, and maybe more) have a good chance at a good career outcome. My guess is that the group of students that professors are specifically aware of disproportionately includes those students.

      So, for example, the professor knows maybe ten students from a given graduating class, and that includes a federal law clerk with a biglaw job waiting in the wings, a couple of state court of appeals clerks with OK midlaw-type jobs, a few more people with low-paying-but-still-practicing-law jobs, and then a handful of students without legal employment. That professor thinks that this is representative of the class as a whole — top 10% gets a great outcome, rest of the top quarter gets good-but-not-great jobs practicing law, then the rest of the top 60% or so at least gets jobs practicing law, and the bottom third or so has to scramble. In reality, though, the federal clerk is the valedictorian and perhaps the only person in the class with a biglaw job waiting; the state appellate clerks are both in the top ten students in the class, and their midlaw jobs are pretty much limited to the top 10%; the people with jobs practicing at small firms are more representative of the top quarter of the class; and the ones without jobs are the majority, and maybe the vast majority.

  8. I thought smaller was better? says:

    Good to see they are cutting the class size. Unlike colorado, which is increasing the class size, while also dropping its admission standards.

    • Sooner says:

      No kudos for Hofstra. Obviously with the reduction in standards, the reduction in class size was not optional. CU law school personnel suck, no doubt about that. A fine illustration of having all the information, and not caring.

  9. BoredJD says:

    The problem is that “capacity” to jump back up to 2.5 million or so students in the NYC area will be there unless we start to see some school closures. No doubt the schools are trying to hold out until (1) the job market jumps back (wishful thinking), (2) they can release employment stats from the current 2Ls and 1Ls showing a jump in employment rates because of small classes, (3) they find a big whale to donate $20 million or whatever.

    The capacity might still be there if there were 6 or 4 schools in the area, but it would be more difficult for a school to sacrifice student quality in pursuit of a larger student body.

  10. NewishLawyer says:

    Another issue is which cities are able to attract graduates from Tier I schools or not.

    New York and the SF-Bay Area are going to be draws for people from Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Chicago, and all other schools. When I took the California and New York bars (2011 and 2012 respectively), there were students from all over the United States including schools in Indiana and Ohio.

    You generally don’t hear about students studying in New York or California and then moving to Nebraska unless they have local roots that they need to maintain.

    Are there cities that are decent to good but not as likely to attract talent a lot of people from Tier 1 schools? Maybe places like Portland (both Maine and Oregon)? Providence (close proximity to Boston but still very small).

    This is just speculation. I have no idea about the answer but I feel like if you are in NYC or the Bay Area you are competition with schools from all over the United States for spots. I’m wondering if someone from Lewis and Clark has a somewhat easier time if they stay in Portland or the Oregon area. Lewis and Clark and Portland were just random examples.

    • Unemployed Northeastern says:

      Portland, Maine, is only about 65,000 people, and it gets rural real fast outside the city limits. I believe Augusta, which is the state capital, clocks in around 25,000 people. Very limited possibilities for new lawyers in Maine.

      Providence, on the other hand, is nearly 200,000 people, and has several populated cities nearby (Pawtucket, Warwick, Cranston, etc). And despite Rhode Island’s employment troubles, there are employers in the area: CVS, Textron, big offices for BofA and Sovereign and Citizens, a few private equity firms, etc. And there is no waiving into Rhode Island, which probably deters a number of would-be transplants. There are a couple good-sized law firms down in the city (Edwards Angell Wildman, Hinckley Allen Snyder, etc, and most of the big Boston firms keep some manner of back office, too.

      In other words, I reckon Rhode Island attracts a lot of out-of-state newbies, while Maine does not.

      • Lee Rudolph says:

        Providence, on the other hand, is nearly 200,000 people, and has several populated cities nearby (Pawtucket, Warwick, Cranston, etc)

        You are using the Rhode Island metric for “nearby” (the classic example of which is treating a drive from somewhere in South County to Woonsocket, or vice versa, as a day trip). Rhode Island as a whole is approximately 1,000,000 people, and has hardly any unpopulated cities (though I suppose there may be one or two lurking in the Great Swamp). It has also been my impression that Providence lawyers (if appropriately admitted to the Massachusetts bar) do a certain amount of business in Fall River, and perhaps as far away as New Bedford!

        • Unemployed Northeastern says:

          Hey! Have you ever driven from Westerly to Providence on Routes 1 and 4? It takes like an hour!

          There is, of course, much truth in what you say. Fall River and New Bedford, which are 15 and 25 miles away, respectively, host nearly another 200,000 people within their city limits. And let’s not get started on the every-half-hour commuter rail and/or Amtrak trains, full-to-bursting with Rhodies who work in Boston.

    • Um... says:

      New York and the SF-Bay Area are going to be draws for people from Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Chicago, and all other schools.

      When did Andy Bernard start commenting on here?

      In any event, my experience is that there are enough people from the tip top schools with local roots or who have to move for spousal reasons in secondary and even tertiary cities* that there is a healthy number of grads from all of the top schools in those places.

      * I tend to group legal markets into three tiers — the megacities (NY/DC/Chicago/LA/SF), the bigger regional cities (Boston/Philly/Miami/Atlanta/Dallas/Houston), and the rest of the more midsized regional cities (Nashville/Cleveland/Austin/Minneapolis/Denver/Phoenix/Seattle — obviously this one isn’t exhaustive).

      • NewishLawyer says:

        Those would be roughly the tiers I was thinking about but I might change some of the cities between II and III.

        There have to be some Tier III cities that are not as covered by the Tier I schools. Though people who really want to do something will give up on geographical area. I had some friends in law school who really wanted to be DAs or PDs. They were willing to move to rural counties in order to get the positions.

  11. Epicurus says:

    Just a recollection, about the time I was attending college, there was a popular bumper sticker on Long Island. “Hofstra-Land of Tuition.” Glad to see nothing has changed in 30+ years. (Proud graduate of Nassau Community College!)

    • NewishLawyer says:

      What did Irvine do to increase? Not surprised that Berkeley and UCLA stayed roughly the same.

      • Paul Campos says:

        Irvine started out four years ago with a very small class (around 65 IIRC) which paid no tuition. The school is gradually ratcheting up to a planned annual class of I believe around 200 per year. It’s extremely expensive ($47K in state and $54K out of state), has no alumni network of course, and is smack in the middle of just about the worst place to try to get a job as a lawyer in the whole country — UCLA and USC are currently struggling to place even half their students in decent legal jobs, and they’re perennial top 20 law schools with terrific networks.

        The whole thing is beyond absurd.

        • NewishLawyer says:

          I think part of it has to be just the “magic” of having a UC next to their name*. Chemerinsky is a great Con Law professor but I doubt is a draw for all but the wonkiest of students. I didn’t know about Chemerinsky until attending law school and most people are probably the same.

          *For all their faults, UC still spells quality to many people.

        • Andrew says:

          How Chemerinsky has shown himself publicly on this issue is disgraceful; I am pretty sure the arguments he’s made will (and should) permanently tarnish the reputation of what used to be a very well-respected academic (well, legal academic which is a bit different).

    • SV Bob says:

      That chart of enrollment is very interesting. I think it shows that most schools have already taken fairly big steps to adapt to the new reality. The top schools reduce little if at all (UC Berkeley, Irvine, UCLA), the middles by 20-25%, and the toilets by 30-50%. High praise goes to UC Davis for reducing by 25%, even though they are a good school and backed by the UC system. Raspberries go to Southwestern, Loyola, San Diego, Pepperdine and Irvine for hubris and reducing less than they should have. Similary, Thomas Jefferson and Cal Western, who should have cut by 50% instead of 30-35%. Southwestern and Loyola are large crap factories and should recognize that. Slight disapproval goes to UC Hastings for being hypocrites and not reducing enough. The other schools have pretty much reduced in accordance with their status.
      La Verne is definitely near the top of a national Death Watch list. The endangered species list should include Cal Western, TJSL, McGeorge, and Golden Gate. USF will survive because they are backed by an old, established university, and because they will outrace Golden Gate in the downtown San Francisco death derby.
      The San Jose Mercury recently ran an article listing nine months post grad JD required employment rates. Santa Clara and Hastings were around 50%, and USF and Golden Gate were around 25%. That’s pretty pathetic – you pay 50k a year for a lottery ticket with a 25% chance of a payout. Golden Gate must surely disappear in the next five years.

  12. H Grad says:

    Actually Hofstra is 113th in u.s. news this year. Nora Demleitner destroyed Hofstra, then she moved to W & L. Beware W & L.

    • James says:

      Of course, Professor Campos’ summary suggests that the admissions standards were substantially higher when Dean Demleitner was in charge than they are now. But don’t let facts get in the way of your personal vendetta.

      • H Grad says:

        Demleitner has only been gone a little over a year. You can’t blame this on Dean Lane.

        • James says:

          I did not blame Dean Lane or anyone else for what seems like a market collapse and the arbitrariness of a rankings publication.

          • H Grad says:

            Who are you? Her husband? Hofstra got sued for fraud while Demleitner was dean, that is a fact. Personal vendetta? You wouldn’t be very happy if you had lost your scholarship through a merit scholarship bait and switch. You wouldn’t be very happy if the placement figures included jobs at Starbucks.

  13. dybbuk says:

    Mark me words: Within two years, daytime TV couch potatoes are going to see some putatively reputable law schools peddling online certificate and master’s programs in things like conflict resolution and health care compliance.

  14. Generation Y says:

    While we’re on the topic of prestigious law schools we should talk about NYLS (median LSAT followed by first year enrollment)

    2010 155 641
    2011 154 488
    2012 152 446
    2013 151 326

    So this is a nearly a 50% decline in enrollment since 2010.

  15. Anti-Campos says:

    Mr. Campos:

    I believe you should be more concerned with your University opposed to ripping on Hofstra.

    Hofstra has actually improved it’s Median GPA/LSAT since 2010 while the school paying your salary University of Colorado has actually gone down in GPA and improved by only one LSAT point.

    Here is a breakdown since 2010 of Hofstra v. University of Colorado

    Hofstra 2010-2013 Median GPA/LSAT

    2010
    Median GPA 3.28
    LSAT 155

    2011
    Median GPA 3.56
    LSAT 157

    2012
    Median GPA 3.58
    LSAT 158

    2013
    Median GPA down to 3.32
    Median LSAT up to 160

    Just for fun let’s again rip on Mr. Campos whose school has not improved as much as Hofstra over the past 4 years.

    Colorado Numbers 2010-2013

    2010
    Median GPA 3.66
    Median LSAT 163

    2011
    Median GPA 3.68
    Median LSAT 163

    2012
    Median GPA DOWN to 3.61
    Median LSAT 164

    2013
    Median GPA 3.64
    Median LSAT 164

    Pretty Stagnant on University of Colorado’s end since 2010

    Hofstra overall median GPA since 2010 even with the drop this year is up overall .04 and their Median LSAT has gone up 5 points.

    Colorado since 2010 overall GPA is down .02 and their LSAT has improved by 1 point.

    Again Mr. Campos should probably focus on the issues at his own school, which has been stagnant and just dropped seven spots in the rankings this year itself.

    I feel bad for ripping on Colorado this much as I am sure it is a fine school, but for a professor whose school is not exactly on the cutting edge itself, but managed to raise tuition from $22,000 per year in tuition in 2010 to it’s current $31,000 per year in tuition price tag should focus on improving issues at Colorado not ripping on a school in another state.

  16. sex says:

    sex

    Dealing with the crash, Pt. 3 – Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.