Home / General / If something cannot go on forever, it will stop

If something cannot go on forever, it will stop


The law school reform movement gets a boost from an unexpected source:

It is no mystery what has prompted the current calls for a two-year law degree. It is, quite simply, the constantly increasing cost of legal education . . . If I may advert to my own experience at Harvard, once again: In the year I graduated, tuition at Harvard was $1,000. To describe developments since then, in the words of a recent article:

Over the past 60 years, tuition at Harvard Law School has increased ten-fold in constant, inflation-adjusted dollars. In the early 1950s, a year’s tuition at the school cost approximately $5,100 in 2011 dollars. Over the next two decades this figure more than doubled, so that by 1971 tuition was $11,664 in 2011 dollars. Tuition grew at a (relatively) modest pace over the course of the 1970s, so that by 1981 it was $14,476 in 2011 dollars. Then it climbed rapidly again, rising to $25,698 in 1991, $34,484 in 2001, and nearly $50,000 in 2011, again all in constant dollars.

This is obviously not sustainable, given that over the last 25 years there has been a sharp contraction of the legal-services sector, compared with the rest of the American economy . . .The graduation into a shrunken legal sector of students with hundreds of thousands of dollars of student debt, non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, cannot continue. Perhaps — just perhaps — the more prestigious law schools (and I include William and Mary among them) can continue the way they are, though that is not certain. But the vast majority of law schools will have to lower tuition. That probably means smaller law school faculties . . . and cutting back on law-school tuition surely means higher teaching loads. That also would not be the end of the world. When I got out of school the average teaching load was almost 8 hours per week. Currently it is about half that. And last but not least, professorial salaries may have to be reduced, or at least stop rising. Again, not the end of the world. To use Harvard again as an example: faculty salaries have much more than doubled in real terms since 1969.

Antonin Scalia, commencement speech to the William & Mary law school graduating class of 2014.


  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • I’m sure he would approve of your Aquinas-worth post title.

    • Hogan

      “If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.” — Fudd’s first law of opposition

      • SFAW

        “It goes in, it must come out.”

        Testlicles deviant to Fudd’s First Law.

        Me? I’m going back to the shadows again.

        • Bob Munck

          I think we’re all bozos on this thread.

          Now that I have the attention of the people with inflatable shoes, I’d like to tell you that Amazon sells that album in downloadable MP3 form for $9.99. However, they also sell all the cuts on the album individually for $0.99 each. There are two cuts, each containing all of one side of the original vinyl. Do the math, Mr. “regnaD.”

  • Anna in PDX

    Is it a lawyerly term of art to “advert to” something rather than “refer to”? I have not heard the term before – it sounds really strange to me.

    • Srsly Dad Y

      Yep, it’s pretentious, but one could argue it has a slightly different connotation than “refer to,” and has the flavor of “gesture to” or “point to.”

    • I’m pretty sure he really means to “ to”.

      • “To aver to” (darn you, lack of preview!)

  • maxxman



    And a few more !!!!s just on general principles!!

  • Waspuppet

    First, did he say anything about administrative salaries or just professors?

    Second, regarding workload: I could be wrong, but my impression was that in The Old Days you could actually throw yourself into teaching a heavy course load because your case for getting hired/tenure actually had something to do with whether you could teach and now it means literally nothing. True?

  • Law Prof kudos

    I’d like to note that Paul’s research and scholarship on the topic of legal education was cited three (3) times by a sitting member of the United States Supreme Court.

    In certain parts of the ivory tower, that’s a badge of honor. For example, I think it’s a badge of honor at the University of Chicago, even though not all the Chicago faculty can make such a claim about their scholarship. I guess some law professors just put out better scholarship than do others.

    • JoyfulA

      That is amazing and wholly unexpected.

      • Orin Kerr

        It probably doesn’t hurt that the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy is distributed to all members of the Federalist Society, a group that includes Justice Scalia.

        On the other hand, I don’t think anyone on the U of C faculty will find it impressive that Scalia quoted this.

        • Unemployed Northeastern

          I find it more likely that a clerk provided the citations than Scalia himself.

          It’s hard to tell if you are being sly or if you don’t get that the Chicago reference upthread is an allusion to one certain Chicago law prof who fancies himself a lone Ubermensch locked in a pitched battle with Campos and his supposed acolytes and conspirators. We all meet in a hollowed-out volcano every weekend to plot the downfall of legal education, don’t you know?

          • Orin Kerr

            Of course. I assume that everything on the Internet is really by or about Brian Leiter.

            • Lee Rudolph

              He was Al Gore’s muse!!!

            • Zumholt

              Well you make fun, but let’s be honest here Orin, Leiter has a tendency to insert himself (frequently anonymously) into a lot of these conversations.

              By the way, you’re in the legal academy, could you explain to me how a guy who was caught having actually pretended to be a graduate student on forums urging people to go to Chicago because “Leiter” was there still be taken seriously by other law professors?

    • Anonymous

      Yes, and Scalia obviously has read “inside the law school scam” and this blog among others. I mean, these guys would normally be clueless to this stuff but for these blogs.

      • Gregor Sansa

        Do you think he reads the comment threads?

        Hey, there, Nino! We hope you’re gone soon!

        • Timb

          We mean retired

          • Guggenheim Swirly

            Sure, okay. Why not.

            • LittlePig

              That’s the ticket!

      • Orin Kerr

        Scalia’s clerk might have read it. But as I point out above, it’s worth noting that Paul’s quoted article appeared in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, which is distributed to all Federalist Society members as a benefit of membership.

        • BoredJD

          He also quotes from Failing Law Schools.

    • Timb

      Yeah, but at Chicago, if you polish the right rich guy, you’ll get a sinecure outside the school

  • pseudonymous in nc

    Does Scalia not get invited to Hollywood Upstairs Law School’s summer European junkets, or does he decline those offers because it would involve acknowledging the existence of other countries?

  • PaulB

    Scalia agrees with Campos? I told you it was all a right wing plot. If we do some digging, I’m sure we’ll find the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson involved as well!

    • IM

      Just wait until Freddie hears this.

      • Gregor Sansa

        True progressives don’t need to hear things. They just know.

        • Timb

          You are objectively despicable

          • Mrs Tilton

            (Enthusiastic clapping)

          • LittlePig


  • mch

    OMG. I just read Scalia’s address to W&M’s graduating students, and I actually agreed with just about everything he said. Strange bedfellows. Maybe this (along with opera) is why he and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are friends (of some sort).

    • I think Scalia can be very smart when his ideology isn’t in play.

      • Gregor Sansa

        Same to you.

      • Ralph Wiggum

        Agreed. I think if he hadn’t been a judge, Scalia would have made a sociopathic but fairly astute CEO.

        • mb

          pretty sure “sociopathic… CEO” is redundant.

  • OhioDocReviewer

    Somewhere in the Chicago metro area, Brian Leiter is weeping bitter tears as he angrily jabs pins in his Paul Campos voodoo doll.

    • Somewhere in the Chicago metro area his house in R’leyh, Brian Leiter is weeping bitter tears as he angrily jabs pins in his Paul Campos voodoo doll.


      • MacK

        I’m sure he is having a conniption – as he tries to explain “Why philosophy has been central to legal education” which translates as “I’m relevant, relevant I tell you…., Posner’s overrated – he’s not a philosopher…” grinds teeth, gnash gnash!

        • Snarki, child of Loki

          Needs moar “FOOLS! I’ll destroy them all!”

        • Zumholt

          Philosophy is very relevant to law and legal practice. Unfortunately, Brian Leiter is not relevant to philosophy. Despite all his bloviating, blog posts, ranking systems, and online feuds, when it comes to actual academic philosophy Leiter is considered downright mediocre. And he sooooo wants to be one of the greats, too.

          Whenever I encounter a philosophy academic I’ve brought up Leiter’s sockpuppetry, including not only the Peter Aduren nonsense but also when he was caught having pretended to be a philosophy graduate student proclaiming that “Leiter” was a reason to go to Chicago. They are always quite fascinated.

      • Manny Kant

        That is not dead which can eternal lie, and in strange aeons, even death may die.

        Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Brian Leiter R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn.

        • OhioDocReviewer

          “What his fate would be, he did not know; but he felt that he was held for the coming of that frightful soul and messenger of infinity’s Other Gods, the crawling chaos Nyarbleiterhotep.”

          • LittlePig

            I would like to treat this comment to a cup of wormwood tea at the little shop over by Miskatonic University.

        • herr doktor bimler

          That is not dead which can eternal lie

          So the secret of eternal life is to never stop lying. OK, that explains Cheney.

          • LittlePig


            Rove looks hale as well.

  • PaulB

    In a more serious vein, I found it interesting that the posts at Prawfsblawg, Faculty Lounge and Volokh all focused on the two year law school mention. I thought it was clear that this was a throwaway remark where he was saying that while he didn’t agree with it, he could see the case for it as a way to save money if the courses taught in 3L were so marginal to the practice of law. His main point (which I’m sure is preaching to the converted here) was that tuition is far too high and that faculty salaries and teaching loads will have to be radically readjusted if tuition is to be brought back to a level consistent with salaries available to graduating students.

    • BoredJD

      What he’s really saying is that law schools should take that time machine back to the 70s/80s, both in curriculum and in cost structure. I’m sure Steve Diamond is furiously working up another “anyone who wants to reduce tuition is in favor of Jim Crow in the law” post as we speak.

      It’s a fair point. A lot of the talk about practice-ready education, IMO, is a way to detract from the many issue of too many law students and too much student loan debt.

  • Marek

    As to the main point, heh indeed and all that. Congratulations! OTOH, Scalia’s “guess” is that the complexity of American law has doubled since 1921? Could he not be bothered to (have his clerks) do more than guess? My guess is that it’s quite a bit more than that. And, I’m pretty sure I can draft a contract in my practice area without more than a vague sense of Antitrust law.

    • Alameda

      You can draft any contract you want without any sense of antitrust law, but if your client executes some subset of them, it can be very costly and/or land someone in federal prison.

      • Marek

        “in my practice area”

    • Guggenheim Swirly

      Scalia’s “guess” is that the complexity of American law has doubled since 1921? Could he not be bothered to (have his clerks) do more than guess?

      How are we measuring the complexity of law here?

      • Ken

        Yardage of shelf space.

        (Which is actually one way archivists measure material.)

        • Lee Rudolph

          I have also heard a university librarian speak of “volumes of books”.

          • Ian

            I appreciate the absurdity of trying to measure insight by the cubic foot.

  • Manta

    Question (as somebody quit ignorant on the subject): what is the rationale for making law a post-graduate degree, instead of a bachelor (and having tuition fees in the appropriate range for a bachelor degree)?

    Somebody may also want to edit the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_school#United_States

    • pseudonymous in nc

      Harvard came up with the postgraduate JD at the end of the 1800s to distinguish itself from the universities offering LLBs to undergraduates, other universities followed suit, and so you ended up with general degree inflation.

      Happened roughly around the same time that medicine also became a postgraduate degree in the US.

      • JoyfulA

        I copyedited a book with a few hundred short biographies of Civil War-era dignitaries, such as governors and state senators. Most were lawyers; most of them went to college for a year or two and then “read with” a prominent lawyer. Times have changed.

        • Timb

          Most lawyers learn law that way now too. We just have to go massively into debt and take a ginormous test to get the privilege.

        • reader

          Can I ask you what that book was entitled? It sounds interesting.

  • DJAnyReason

    Not to be that guy, but pointing out the rise in prof salaries since 1969 isn’t terribly persuasive. On 12/31/1969, US GDP in $2009 was $4.91 trillion. On 12/31/2013 it was 15.94 trillion, which is more than triple. IOW, prof salaries are rising slower than the economy as a whole.

    Agree with every other point made, and am 100% on board the law-school-is-a-scam-and-needs-to-be-fixed bandwagon – just don’t think prof salaries are the culprit.

    • Paul Campos

      Wages for men with four-year college degrees increased by all of 10% between 1973 and 2013. Wages for women with college degrees increased (from a 33% lower base rate) by 20%.

      Wages for people with only high school degrees declined over this period.

      The percentage of American workers who have seen their wages more than double in real terms over the past four decades is very small.

      That said, increases in per capita tenure track faculty salaries account, by my estimate, for about 15%-20% in the rise of the cost of legal education over the last 40 years. A far larger factor has been the radical decrease in faculty-student ratio. Other big factors include the explosion in administrative positions, and the amenities race (ever-fancier facilities).

      • Unemployed Northeastern

        Hey Professor Campos,

        Do you have a cite for you first paragraph? I’d love to read more about those trends. Thanks.

    • Philip Arlington

      This is so bizarrely off beam that it is hard to know how to go about critiquing it. Individual salaries just aren’t based on the overall size of the national economy, period. You are ignoring population growth, and the number of law professors, and the labour productivity of law professors, and the value of their work to their students or to society, and the salaries paid to other professionals, and just about everything else that is relevant to the question of what law professors should be paid,

      • H. Rumbold, Master Barber

        I suspect it’s like athletes/media stars/CEOs – not so much a measure of their value added, but a leveraged token of their perceived superiority.

        • BoredJD

          See Rob “I coulda took that seven-figure M+A job in New York City but instead I deigned to come to Oregon and bestow my wisdom upon you peons” Illig.

          • twbb

            Did anyone ever figure out how someone with Illig’s mediocre (by law professor standards) law school record, associateship at what is, charitably, a B-grade law firm, and lack of legal scholarship at the time off hiring actually get that law professor job in the first place?

  • al

    Teaching load was once 8 hours per week, and is now 4? Holy crap. I know non-law professors. They’d kill for either one.

  • Shwell Thanksh

    Ah but Scalia’s clock isn’t exactly stopped (yet!), and a stopped clock is only precisely correct for a brief instantaneous moment twice a day.
    I’d say that while historically Scalia’s minute hand has reliably run significantly to the right of on-time, corresponding to a clock that was *never* right, his mechanism has recently become increasingly erratic. The result is a readout which is a complex stochastic function and may indeed be correct many times a day, or never.
    Depending, perhaps, on the itchiness of his hair shirt.

    • LittlePig

      Perhaps it was a light cilice day.

  • ChrisI

    It seems to me that the law-school-in-two-years proposal rests on the premise that law school is—or ought to be—a trade school. It is not that.

    Why not? I’m not sure what a “trade school” means exactly, but it would probably deliver a better legal education than the current model. It would probably reduce or eliminate the fluff courses he mentions later on:

    It is also well known that many of the courses from which the student may choose have a distinct non-legal flavor, to say the least: from “Effective and Sustainable Law Practice: the Meditative Perspective” and “Elegance in Legal Thought and Expression” at Berkeley Law School, to “The Philosophical Reinvention of Christianity” at Harvard, to “Contemporary Virtue Ethics” at Chicago.

    Isn’t this whole “being taught to think like a lawyer” spiel just a conceit anyhow?

    • Ralph Wiggum

      3 years isn’t ridiculous compared to other countries. In Britain, someone coming out of (3 year) college with a BA in an unrelated subject will have to do two one-year courses and then one year’s pupillage before becoming a barrister (of course, for the last year you’re being paid).

      • cpinva

        Britain doesn’t have nearly the per capita barristers & solicitors that the US has. of course, I don’t believe they have a student loan business similar to the U.S.’s either.

        • pseudonymous in nc

          And in Britain, most prospective lawyers will actually have an undergraduate law degree, then spend one year on either the LPC or bar exam.

          • MacK

            In the UK a prospective solicitor with an undergraduate degree in law will taken the legal practice course 1 year plus 2 years traineeship in a firm for a total of 6 years, 3 years for the BL and 3 years post BL training – and UK college course are shorter because the UK A-Level is more specialised and advanced in a limited set if subjects. In Ireland the BL is 4 years so the total is 7 years of legal education. Germany is at least 6-7 but often more.

            If someone does not have an undergraduate law degree in the UK and Ireland they can do a diploma in law which takes 1-2 years, plus the LPC for another year, then 2 years training contract.

            The idea that in other countries the training to be a lawyer has been cut to 3 years is a fantasy.

            • pseudonymous in nc

              In terms of raw time? Sure. In terms of the cost structure for that time, it’s not comparable at all.

              Medicine and law in the US are cash cows for institutions because they kick in at the postgraduate level. In medicine, it’s given the US lots of specialists, not enough general practitioners, and too many doctors with nice-little-earner sidelines; in law, it leads to lots of people with a mortgage’s worth of debt but no legal job.

    • ChrisI

      Thanks MacK, so length of post-secondary training for those wanting to become a lawyer is almost as long in Britain and other countries as America?

      But anyhow I was talking about the method of teaching rather than the length of legal training. Make it more like a “trade school”. Teach practical knowledge instead of philosophy. Get rid of the socratic method. Do it cheaply – if clinics are too expensive, then stick to lectures.

      And teach what will be useful to the average graduate – for example if most graduates are going on to small law practice, place less emphasis on constitutional law.

      • Richard Gadsden

        The overall length of the education is similar.

        Roughly speaking, the 1L is covered in the LLB (bachelor’s) or in the Dip Law in law school (for people with a bachelor’s in something other than law), the 2L is in law school and the 3L is covered over two years as a trainee solicitor or pupil barrister.

        The key thing is not the overall length, but that most lawyers only do one year in law school.

    • mch

      Just to register that I agree that the trades vs. profession thing is a little weird, much as I tend to pump at Paul’s posts for the idea of “professing.” Weird, because I also believe in the trades as, well, professions, in some essential way.

      There are gradations. A couple who own a house and want to make a will that will benefit their children doesn’t need an expert in constitutional law to help them out. But even your small-town will-and-house-closing lawyer gets lots of other cases thrown her way, including criminal cases. The nimbleness of mind, bolstered by some real, broader learning that a more rigorous legal training (ideally!) would foster — let’s not quibble over trade v. profession.

    • Ken

      Isn’t this whole “being taught to think like a lawyer” spiel just a conceit anyhow?

      It does often seem indistinguishable from “What argument can I make to justify outcome X, which I want?” Of course, unless you’re on the Supreme Court, your argument actually has to convince some other people; but then, so does effective advertising.

    • UserGoogol

      The distinction the seems to be drawing is between learning a broad survey of the law as opposed to learning some narrow set of immediately applicable skills.

  • dude.

    Paul Campos just took two steps up on the ladder of coolness. Scalia should quote nothing but Campos. Hear! Hear! (Seriously, I think that this is awesome)

  • Abby

    Surely, if you treat your children like you do your bridges, and sewer pipes, your society will crumble. If only, the supremes, and congress, cared more about the quality of life of our children
    and less about the industrial complex, we would not be in the
    present situation.

  • MacK

    Further to what I said earlier – by the way I posted this on TFL, but Filler routinely deletes me:

    German legal training is a very tight funnel. First you need to get a basic degree in law – which is a 4 year program. At the end of that you have to take a comprehensive and very tough state exam – which you get two tries to pass – not surprisingly a lot of BL holders delay taking that for a while – and often get an LLM or doctoral degree along the way – the fail rate is about 32%. So that step is at least 4 years. After this you need to get 24 months of legal training cycling through various areas of law – this is called the Referendarzeit, or apprenticeship – and because you need to get 4 units of 6 months it can take more than 2 years to set up. At the end of this two year period – you again need to take a very tough comprehensive state exam – only two tries to pass that – so again a lot of students study for a while before doing it – fail rate is 18%. So the basic German system is 6 years, but many lawyers will take more and pick up doctoral degrees along the way. A good few decide not to go on after their basic law degree and so do not take the first state exam. Grades in the state exams are public, on the following scale:

    • 16-18 points = very good
    • 13-15 points = good
    • 10-12 points = fully satisfactory
    • 7-9 points = satisfactory
    • 4-6 points = fair
    • 1-3 points = poor
    • 0 points = poor

    Anything less than 4 is a fail. However, many jobs (especially public sector) require you to get at least a “fully satisfactory” as would most of the better firms. So even passing is not necessarily enough – you have to clear the hurdle by a wide margin.

    English/Irish/Scottish legal training has some variation depending on whether you plant to be a solicitor or a barrister. There are two routes – either you take a qualifying degree course in law – 3 years in England/Scotland, 4 years in Ireland – this is an academic legal education, not a professional education (and the law professors are treated and largely paid as any other liberal arts academic) – there are far too many degree courses, over 100 in England and Scotland – and far too many BLs granted every year. Inter alia, I was STEM (Physics, Chem, Math) and we had about 37 – 42 scheduled hours a week between classes and labs typically, before study. Law students had 9 their first year, less later – and were infamous for their laziness and general dissipation – that may have changed, but is is not a hard-work undergraduate degree in Europe. Law school in the US, for a JD is a pretty heavy course load – the problem, as Scalia alluded to, is that the core doctrinal (and tougher) subjects have left the curriculum in many law schools, or have become very difficult to take – hell I never took antitrust – and then went from law school to the EU Commissions’s DG IV (DG Competition) and have had a pretty heavy antitrust/competition practice in my career.

    Alternately, if your primary degree is in something other than law, you can take a Diploma in Law – which typically takes two years. All this is a pre-requisite. The next thing is usually to find a traineeship or pupillage – because without a training contract or pupillage the vocations stage – the Legal Practice Course – is a waste of time. There are – it is hard to count – between 25,000 and 35,000 potential trainees a year for between 5-7,000 positions, so getting to the next stage is pretty tough.

    The LPC/Vocational is 1-year full time or two years part time. After that a solicitor will spend 2 years in training at a firm or firms – the barrister 1 year of pupillage (at which point they will be a junior and not normally allowed to do anything important alone.) So anyway you slice it, it is a minimum of 6 years barrister or 7 years solicitor. One item of good news is that you will be paid as a trainee, not a lot, but still. And all the way there are exams to pass. Inter alia many firms today may prefer to hire non-BLs, especially those with STEM degrees.

    In Japan – first of all there are a lot more “lawyers” than people think – because there are many types of legal practice – Bengoshi of course, but also Benrishi, notaries, legal/judicial scriveners – and an absolute army of in-house legal people. So the common statistic you hear about how few lawyers there are in Japan is ignorant bullshit – there are many more in reality than people think, just not that many Bengoshi. Recent efforts to increase the number of Bengoshi have in some respect gone badly – with many law schools closing and many of the graduates having a hard time getting jobs. The big issue in Japan is that law as an undergraduate degree, especially from Todai (Tokyo), Waseda and Keio, is very prestigious – and these programs take only the best high school graduates. When you graduate a top university your best career choice is to take a senior management track job the first 2-3 years. But if you wanted to be a Bengoshi you needed to sit a law exam just to get into the legal training institute – one that only 2% passed – so this is an exam taken by kids who never flunked in their lives – now looking at 40:1 odds of failure – very few do it, and most just once or twice (and many junior associates seem to be driven nuts by the experience.) Then it is 3 years of training after 4 years for your degree and 1-3 years cramming for the exam – so typically 7-9 years training.

    So is there a big benefit to these systems – hmmm. You generally really have to want to be a lawyer to go through all this bullshit, so I suppose that is a positive. But the idea that 2 years of law school is what exists in other countries – nah! not so.

    • Yargh!

      Something else that’s interesting about these other countries is that there seem to be more large-scale exams earlier on in the process. That avoids the lovely outcome of incurring six figures of debt only to find the licensing exam impossible and one’s alma mater sarcastically shrugging its shoulders long after those federal checks are cashed.

    • Just speaking from my own experience, the system in England and Wales had one very clear advantage (other than being cheaper, that is) and that is that you had multiple check-points at which you could simple drop out. The failure to get a traineeship/puppilage was an obvious one, though some people decide (dumbly, in my opinion) to self-fund after that.

      My experiences in Japan were just bad. I would never want to inflict the kind of pointlessly difficult exams that they have on anyone, and I don’t think they resulted in any real improvement in quality.

  • ChrisI

    Stephen Diamond responds here to Justice Scalia. http://stephen-diamond.com/?p=5283

    Nope, apparently you can’t deliver decent modern legal education for much under $40k p/a. Can’t be done. In fact $40k is remarkably cheap. Sure HYS can offer quality education for $50k, but that’s because they are heavily subsidized by their endowments.

    You can’t reduce professor’s salaries much either, otherwise all your decent professors will go back to the commercial world at far more lucrative salaries.

    Anyhow this is all “a 100 year economic storm”. Things will return to normal soon, and in the meantime there’s always IBR.

    • MAD

      Prof. Stephen Diamond is…priceless.

      When discussing the faculty labor market, he gets a bit…Illig with,

      “When I was engaged in negotiations to become the CEO of a large non-profit some years ago (at a salary more than 3x my faculty salary) I certainly was not operating under the illusion my University would try to match it.”

      Yet the very link he nicely provides indicates,

      “Sources close to the guild said Diamond withdrew his name from consideration Wednesday after seeking a higher salary than the union was willing to pay.”

      Apparently he was operating under the illusion that the SAG would match his reasonable compensation overestimation of market value.

  • Nathanael

    I’m going to go there and say that the “legal services” market will shrink massively because we no longer have rule of law.

    In the modern day and age, much better to hire mercenaries and bribe-givers. Why hire lawyers when the law is a joke?


  • Pingback: The Non-Silencing of Conservative Speakers - Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money()

It is main inner container footer text