Do the Statements Made by Law School Administration Amount to Criminal Fraud?
brasky (Jul 30 - 2:38 pm)
In my opinion, it seems plausible. However, the statements are literally true. Yet, they are substantially misleading. Is substantially misleading sufficient for a conviction?
A five part fraud test from Minnesota:
1. a false misrepresentation of a past or present material fact;
2. knowledge by the person making the false assertion that it is false or ignorance of the truth of the assertion;
3. an intention to induce the claimant to act or to justify the claimant to act;
4. the claimant must have been induced to act or justified in acting in reliance on the representation; and
5. the claimant must suffer damage proximately caused by the misrepresentation.
http://www.mnbar.org/benchandbar/2006/sept06/fraud.htm
Reply
In my opinion, it seems plausible. However, the statements are literally true. Yet, they are substantially misleading. Is substantially misleading sufficient for a conviction?
A five part fraud test from Minnesota:
1. a false misrepresentation of a past or present material fact;
2. knowledge by the person making the false assertion that it is false or ignorance of the truth of the assertion;
3. an intention to induce the claimant to act or to justify the claimant to act;
4. the claimant must have been induced to act or justified in acting in reliance on the representation; and
5. the claimant must suffer damage proximately caused by the misrepresentation.
http://www.mnbar.org/benchandbar/2006/sept06/fraud.htm
Reply
therewillbeblood (Jul 30 - 3:51 pm)
You said criminal fraud in the subject matter, but you linked to an article on civil fraud. Anyway, I don't think a fraud case would be successful, but I think it is strong enough to survive a motion to dismiss.
Reply
You said criminal fraud in the subject matter, but you linked to an article on civil fraud. Anyway, I don't think a fraud case would be successful, but I think it is strong enough to survive a motion to dismiss.
Reply
causanortis (Jul 30 - 3:00 pm)
Even better, perhaps law schools ought to reimburse tuition, or float the first few years of a first year lawyer's salary on the basis of promissory estoppel.. Anyone remember the definition for promissory estoppel?
yeah, here it is:
"In the law of contracts, the doctrine that provides that if a party changes his or her position substantially either by acting or forbearing from acting in reliance upon a gratuitous promise, then that party can enforce the promise although the essential elements of a contract are not present."
Yeah that just about fits the description of what happens to most law students... I think an implied promise can be safely assumed upon admission.
Reply
Even better, perhaps law schools ought to reimburse tuition, or float the first few years of a first year lawyer's salary on the basis of promissory estoppel.. Anyone remember the definition for promissory estoppel?
yeah, here it is:
"In the law of contracts, the doctrine that provides that if a party changes his or her position substantially either by acting or forbearing from acting in reliance upon a gratuitous promise, then that party can enforce the promise although the essential elements of a contract are not present."
Yeah that just about fits the description of what happens to most law students... I think an implied promise can be safely assumed upon admission.
Reply
therewillbeblood (Jul 30 - 3:52 pm)
Eh, I dunno, promissory estoppel is a way to enforce otherwise valid contracts where there was no consideration. With law school you have consideration. Straight breach of contract might be better.
Reply
Eh, I dunno, promissory estoppel is a way to enforce otherwise valid contracts where there was no consideration. With law school you have consideration. Straight breach of contract might be better.
Reply
causanortis (Jul 30 - 5:00 pm)
Yeah but implied promises are totally valid.. and more importantly prospective law students are induced to rely on these implied promises in determining which law school to attend, with full knowledge by the law school adcoms that the students will do so.
Or to argue another angle:
Law schools are knowingly putting out fraudulent information to prospective students, who are in turn induced to rely on this information in making a formal contractual agreement to attend their school and incur all necessary expenses, all to the student body's detriment.
I know this is legal shaky ground, but hell it works for me... We gotta get these evil pricks somehow, I say why the hell not..
Reply
Yeah but implied promises are totally valid.. and more importantly prospective law students are induced to rely on these implied promises in determining which law school to attend, with full knowledge by the law school adcoms that the students will do so.
Or to argue another angle:
Law schools are knowingly putting out fraudulent information to prospective students, who are in turn induced to rely on this information in making a formal contractual agreement to attend their school and incur all necessary expenses, all to the student body's detriment.
I know this is legal shaky ground, but hell it works for me... We gotta get these evil pricks somehow, I say why the hell not..
Reply
mississippilawyer (Aug 1 - 10:44 pm)
Causa - the reliance must be reasonable, and that would be a tough to prove, imo. However, I agree that law schools are profit guzzling scams causing a de facto class of indentured servants who are slaves to their non-dischargable student loan debts.
Reply
Causa - the reliance must be reasonable, and that would be a tough to prove, imo. However, I agree that law schools are profit guzzling scams causing a de facto class of indentured servants who are slaves to their non-dischargable student loan debts.
Reply
SoDespondent (Jul 30 - 3:30 pm)
Minnesotan, eh? Which school, Hambone, St. TTThomas, or MiTTTchell?
Reply
Minnesotan, eh? Which school, Hambone, St. TTThomas, or MiTTTchell?
Reply
brasky (Jul 30 - 3:39 pm)
Surprisingly, Mitchell is no longer a TTT (barely). I mean, it will make no difference, but still... sort of surprising.
All three schools are toilets so the specific one is irrelevant.
Reply
Surprisingly, Mitchell is no longer a TTT (barely). I mean, it will make no difference, but still... sort of surprising.
All three schools are toilets so the specific one is irrelevant.
Reply
boojee (Jul 30 - 4:40 pm)
Many of the start-up schools will lure students with a promise of a scholarship and revoke it after the first semester.
My friend was lured to a law school because he was told he would receive a scholarship over the phone. Anyway, My friend moved and right before school started, the dean said to my friend "Oh, I must have mispoken" when he asked about the scholarship.
Reply
Many of the start-up schools will lure students with a promise of a scholarship and revoke it after the first semester.
My friend was lured to a law school because he was told he would receive a scholarship over the phone. Anyway, My friend moved and right before school started, the dean said to my friend "Oh, I must have mispoken" when he asked about the scholarship.
Reply
downfell (Aug 2 - 10:22 am)
Your friend moved relying on what he thought he heard in a phone conversation? You shouldn't need law school to tell you to see it in writing. Christ.
Reply
Your friend moved relying on what he thought he heard in a phone conversation? You shouldn't need law school to tell you to see it in writing. Christ.
Reply
onehell (Aug 1 - 5:17 pm)
We've been over this a thousand times: No school can guarantee you a job, not even Harvard. The school has no control over the employer's actions, or over your own personality/resume writing ability/preexisting experience/connections/any of the thousand other variables that go into getting hired. The CSO's brochures are at least literally accurate, and the school's promise to give you a credential that will allow you to sit for the bar exam if you pay your tuition & pass your classes is also 100% fulfilled.
You cannot litigate your way out of every problem, nor out of every bad deal. In the absence of fraud, which requires an intent to mislead that clearly isn't present here (speculation of bitter toileteers notwithstanding) the law of the land is caveat emptor.
The accreditation bodies could and should insist that the cso stats be independently audited according to generally accepted accounting principles, but the failure to do so isn't legally actionable.
Reply
We've been over this a thousand times: No school can guarantee you a job, not even Harvard. The school has no control over the employer's actions, or over your own personality/resume writing ability/preexisting experience/connections/any of the thousand other variables that go into getting hired. The CSO's brochures are at least literally accurate, and the school's promise to give you a credential that will allow you to sit for the bar exam if you pay your tuition & pass your classes is also 100% fulfilled.
You cannot litigate your way out of every problem, nor out of every bad deal. In the absence of fraud, which requires an intent to mislead that clearly isn't present here (speculation of bitter toileteers notwithstanding) the law of the land is caveat emptor.
The accreditation bodies could and should insist that the cso stats be independently audited according to generally accepted accounting principles, but the failure to do so isn't legally actionable.
Reply
brasky (Aug 1 - 5:50 pm)
Of course school cannot guarantee employment. However, they could be expected to refrain from substantially misleading prospective students.
I disagree regarding a "clear" lack of intent to mislead. They should certainly include a disclaimer such as: "this data includes part-time and full time work. It includes temporary attorney's with no benefits and actual attorneys. It includes persons working at fast food restaurants, waiters, coffee shop employees etc etc. The data we use to compile salary information only constitutes 25% of the previous class. Generally only the persons making a reasonable wage report their salary. Very few of the employers we list in our brochures actually hire any of our graduates. To be hired by our advertised employers you will probably need to be within the top 5% of our class. The vast majority of this class will earn between 30k and 50k per year."
Of course, they would never include such a statement. It would make it obvious the school is not worth the full tuition. They want to make it appear to prospective students the school is worth full price.
Reply
Post a message in this threadOf course school cannot guarantee employment. However, they could be expected to refrain from substantially misleading prospective students.
I disagree regarding a "clear" lack of intent to mislead. They should certainly include a disclaimer such as: "this data includes part-time and full time work. It includes temporary attorney's with no benefits and actual attorneys. It includes persons working at fast food restaurants, waiters, coffee shop employees etc etc. The data we use to compile salary information only constitutes 25% of the previous class. Generally only the persons making a reasonable wage report their salary. Very few of the employers we list in our brochures actually hire any of our graduates. To be hired by our advertised employers you will probably need to be within the top 5% of our class. The vast majority of this class will earn between 30k and 50k per year."
Of course, they would never include such a statement. It would make it obvious the school is not worth the full tuition. They want to make it appear to prospective students the school is worth full price.
Reply