Dear Co-Best Law Schools in Minneapolis:
It's my understanding that you are seeking to merge. As you both know, running a law school can not only be joyous, splendid fun, but also serve the public interest and provide a landing spot for BigLaw's better-credentialed rejects. You two have been independently ensuring an ongoing win in the war for social justice in Minneapolis for over a century, and I have no doubt you will continue in your new union.
It is my understanding that despite the obviously-cyclical nature of this "recession" in the legal education sector (how many times does Professor Diamond have to say it until it sinks in?), you have thought it in your "financial interests" to join forces and create one super-badass law school where previously there were two.
This wedding shall be a bittersweet moment. On one hand, when you two combine your awesome forces, you are going to build an arsenal of frostbite flim-flam, a legion's worth of law school lemming larceny, churning and burning through tons of fine students who couldn't quite make it into Minnesota. When you combine resources, I have no doubt that your legal scholarship output will quadruple the amount of justice you're currently distributing.
But I give you a word of caution: mergers can be fraught with risk. I speak, most importantly, of "efficiencies." Some cost-cutting soulless bureaucrats may try to talk you into "staff reductions" or "buy-outs of overpriced faculty members" or say things like "you don't really need six international entertainment law scholars."
To hell with these people. Protected tenure for all is as important as a newlywed couple buying a McMansion in the suburbs as soon as they can get a loan. It is the bulwark of academic liberty, and essential to letting law professors keep their inflated salaries and senses of self-worth. Every tenured faculty member of either Hamline or Mitchell must be allowed to keep their position, with full liberty to publish as much navel-gazing lucubration as their curricula vitae can handle. The only way to ensure that Minneapolis does not have a legal scholarship shortage is to continue to provide a supportive environment for each and every one of these superlative scholars.
Furthermore, what will happen when the demand for legal services and particularly legal education rebounds to lofty new heights? Previously, demand easily supported four law schools in the twin cities. Please don't be so naive as to think demand will not return, particularly after the current crop of graduates begin making bank when the pending lawyer shortage hits. You currently have the capacity to handle that demand. Downsizing would only mean having to upsize in a few years, or, in the alternative, having to open up a whole new law school to ensure that the Twin Cities remains at maximum JD advantage.
I'm happy for you, but you must take these responsibilities seriously. I implore you to keep full tenured faculties at both institutions and resist any efforts to "improve efficiency" or other corporate non-speak from people who simply don't understand the legal industry and how easy it is to take $200k from 23-year-olds who are on their way to making great district attorneys.
Bless you, whatever you call yourself: Hamiam Mitchline. Willline Mitchamill. Hammy Wilmitch. Minnesota Summit. Really, let the creative juices flow.
Just know that I hope you've merged for the right reasons, and that I look forward to your reproducing numerous satellite campuses in Duluth, Rochester, Moorhead, etc.
If you've married for the wrong reasons, well, the total lack of divorce lawyers to handle the aftermath will, frankly, be your own damned fault. So pump 'em out, baby. Pump 'em out.
With love this scammertine's day,
Law School Truth Center.
P.S. - I know the ABA still has to approve this union. Please don't let cause you any stress. You could three-way merge with a horse college and a barber college and the ABA would likely acquiesce and feature y'all in a video on social justice.