Hide the Children: New York Times Blows Lid on Legal Education Scandal

As reported by the experts at Business Insider, the New York Times has reported that across the country there are people who take the bar examination without even having graduated law school!

The apprenticeships, available as an option in only several states, are referred to as law office study and the participants called law readers. Those who choose law office study avoid the debt burdening their counterparts who pay law school tuition to receive law degrees, reports The Times. They also gain valuable experience as members of law offices, where they get to work in courtrooms and with clients rather than studying in classrooms.

The elements of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress are:

1. An intentional or reckless act
2. That is extreme and outrageous
3. That causes actual damages 

WELL... they're doing it intentionally, it's obviously extreme and outrageous, and America's best law schools (now with over two hundred!) are losing revenue from these thieves.  Someone call Kurzon Strauss, I've got a red-hot lawsuit to file.

How in the hell can you learn to be a proper lawyer without studying in a classroom with law professors?  If you could learn the law by going to court every day, we'd just make the lemmings pay to take care of our traffic tickets.  But exploiting these other would-be legal scholars by making them to do office work under the guise of "reading" the law (where better to read the law than a classroom in a proper juris doctor curriculum?) is simply exploitative.

Even if only 0.1 percent of students take this course, that's still 45-50 students, which is like $1.5 - 2.0M in full-freight revenue being robbed from law schools.  In an age where the nation's future legal sector is threatened by declining interest by greedy charlatan millennials who may actually care about paying debt back (5th Commandment, people; 5th Commandment), having any course of action that deprives American law schools of students is a threat to the entire judicial branch of government, which is an essential safeguard of freedom and such.

Do you know anyone who wouldn't sue over $1.5M?  Me neither, and I'm networked.  Let's do it and go for punitive damages.