Saturday, July 26, 2014

Suffolk is your Brethren in the Law. You Must Support It.

Suffolk Law has an advertising campaign boldly and proudly announcing that Suffolk has produced more members of the current Massachusetts state bench than Harvard, Yale, and Columbia combined.  "They offer tradition," the ad continues completely fairly and rationally and persuasively, "we offer results."

This is exactly the type of advertising that law schools need.  It's truthful, proud, and properly informs prospective students about the benefits of attending that particular college instead of more "prestigious" institutions.  You'll make a great trial court judge!

Of course, the cynics at Above the Law have a disdain for blue collar law schools and decided to take it out on the Sanctity of Law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
As our tipster put it: “Sure, the President, six of nine Supreme Court Justices, and the Governor may all have attended Harvard. But Suffolk Law has Worcester Probate Court on lock, bitches.”
No disrespect to the Massachusetts judicial system, but Harvard and Yale may not be competing with Suffolk over that plum.
Apologists will suggest that “maybe some students really want a school to provide regional opportunities,” which would be a fair statement if (a) you thought Harvard grads couldn’t get Massachusetts state judgeships...
INSOLENCE!  How dare they directly insult the hard working state court judges of Massachusetts who allow liberty to flow freely and who use their Suffolk law degree on a daily basis to serve justice on Constitutionally-sound imaginary plates.

Cue Paul Dacier, President of the Boston Bar Association:
ATL mocks the school for its pride in this achievement, suggesting that becoming a state judge is not a high honor. The vitriol in this editorial was a shock and made us think hard enough about the issue that we feel compelled to respond. Any attack on the judiciary is an attack on our society and the foundational structure of our government.
[T]ake a step back to think about whether we should be castigating a law school for trying to combat the declining law school application rates; consider whether sweeping assumptions about the caliber of its students and graduates are required or even accurate; and remember the landmark decisions and advancements in the law that our state court judges have made because their judgment carries great weight. We should not be spreading malice, but rather support for our brethren in the law.
In syllogism form:
Premise A.  State court judges are really important and worthy of respect.
Premise B.  Suffolk and schools like it can provide, and have produced, graduates who have done such stuff 
Conclusion.  If you're criticizing Suffolk's advertising that includes the Massachusetts judiciary, you're assaulting the judiciary, being malicious, and insufficiently supporting your brethren in the law.
Please, scambloggers, consider the harm you do.  Suffolk law is only trying to reel in gullible mid-range LSAT scorers who are applying some logical fallacy to an incomplete factual scenario.  All they're trying to do is combat the declining application rate.  You should show more support for your brethren.

And, friends, Suffolk is your brethren.  Embrace it.  Love it.  Pay a tuition deposit for fall.


  1. Yeah, I love how their definition of supporting legal brethren seems to apply to applauding law schools for trying to get more applicants to apply. I guess by supporting 'legal brethren,' they don't mean looking out for the interests of the indebted future or current law graduate. For those individuals, the only support seems to be offering the phrase: caveat emptor.

    1. If you wish to support your "legal brethren" in that matter, I suggest you pull out a checkbook and help them pay the cost it takes to run a modern, excellent law school. A top-notch faculty and legal technology are not cheap.

  2. Since most Suffolk grads aren't benchwarmers in the lower courts, this attempt at high drama is a new low for the law school recruitment scam. High comedy indeed.

  3. Once upon a boomer time, there were plenty of low-cost law schools with zero national reputation, but excellent local connections-- such as Suffolk in Boston, or Marshall in Chicago. These schools would funnel working class kids and children of immigrants into public sector law jobs, an honorable function. And a few of these bright and ambitious kids might eventually even climb the ladder to a state court judgeship.

    Those days are over. First, these law schools are no longer low cost-- even at the third and fourth tier, they come with price tags from hell. Second, public sector law jobs have become surprisingly scarce due to austerity, which has taken on a cast of permanence, plus the massive glut of both recent grads and underemployed experienced lawyers. Third, public sector jobs have become far more desirable relative to the rest of the legal job market because they may offer such rarities as reasonable work hours, job security, and pensions.

    Dacier is pretending not to understand, but nobody faults Suffolk for having state judges among its alumni. What they fault the school for is a miserable 37% law job employment rate, estimated debt-financed cost of $255,000, and a median 149 LSAT score. Let's hear him defend those things.

    1. Boomers gonna boom.

  4. Not sure I necessarily agree, but hey, it got my attention!