Classless Action
I just received an e-mail notification regarding the Kashmiri case. For the uninitiated, this is the class action brought by a Boaltie against the UC for the fee increases that began in 2003. The allegations rested on a reliance theory (somewhere on the UC website someone said that fees will not be raised, but they were).
There are three subclasses: (1) Spring 2003 semester students at any UC school on the semester system; (2) Summer 2003 students at UCB and UCLA; (3) Professional students who enrolled prior to Dec. 16, 2002. The following are the damages per class:
Of that amount, the following will be deducted:
Count me as someone who thinks $7-10 million is excessive. So, I will object to the attorneys' fees. I will also give back to Boalt whatever I get from this disbursement (though I'm technically getting paid for being a member of subclass 2). I don't think current UC students and California residents should be saddled with this ridiculous judgment. No one's happy with education costs going up, but paying those who actually got several years dirt cheap legal education doesn't make things better.
There are three subclasses: (1) Spring 2003 semester students at any UC school on the semester system; (2) Summer 2003 students at UCB and UCLA; (3) Professional students who enrolled prior to Dec. 16, 2002. The following are the damages per class:
Of that amount, the following will be deducted:
Plaintiffs have proposed that their attorneys be compensated for their five years of work on this litigation with a fee equal to 25% of the damages amounts for each of the three subclasses to be deducted from the damages awards to each subclass. Plaintiffs also propose that their attorneys be compensated a reasonable amount for the out-of-pocket expenses that counsel have incurred during the duration of this litigation. Expenses are approximately $100,000 as of June 1, 2008, and are expected to increase substantially before this litigation ends. Plaintiffs also propose to pay the eight class representatives a service award to compensate them for the time and risk involved in pursuing this lawsuit against the University. The proposed service payments total $80,000.
Count me as someone who thinks $7-10 million is excessive. So, I will object to the attorneys' fees. I will also give back to Boalt whatever I get from this disbursement (though I'm technically getting paid for being a member of subclass 2). I don't think current UC students and California residents should be saddled with this ridiculous judgment. No one's happy with education costs going up, but paying those who actually got several years dirt cheap legal education doesn't make things better.
Labels: Kashmiri
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 1:51 PM
62 Comments:
I'm sorry, but Kashmiri pisses me off.
Yes, the University did a bad, bad thing. No, they should not be allowed. And yes, I'm glad that it was ultimately illegal to inflict unforeseen costs upon students.
But Plaintiffs' suit, which racked up legal fees and damages much greater than the harm, is effecting the same kind of harm, albeit legally.
I hope all you alums enjoy your 0.37 check. The rest of us will be taking out loans to cover it.
I agree. This dude is everything that the world hates about law students (the "I'll sue your ass" mentality). And even worse that he was a Boaltie.
A question for any tax enthusiasts out there: is Armen's plan to accept his settlement payment then donate it to Boalt a good or bad idea from a tax standpoint?
Issues to spot:
1) Will the settlement payment be included in the recipient's gross income?
2) Will opting out of the settlement allow UC to keep the money, or will it just be divided among the other plaintiffs?
3) If a student opts out and UC keeps the money, will it go to Boalt or the Regents?
4) If the student accepts the payment and gives it to Boalt, will it be tax deductible?
5) If deductible, will it be above the line or below the line?
6) If it is deductible below the line, will someone working at a law firm be subject to the itemized deduction phase-out? If so, how much will be lost to the phase-out? Does the loss depend on whether the student itemizes? On how many itemized deductions the student has?
7) Are there any tax consequences to UC based on whether it pays out and receives back as a donation, or simply avoids paying out?
Economic damages are not income, thus not subject to income tax. Donations to a qualified non-profit entity are tax deductible, but only for the amount over 10% of your AGI. I don't think the $18 per unit that I will get back will reach 10% of my AGI (woe is me). To the extent any of this is even remotely accurate, I attribute to the awesome teaching ability of the Big Rak.
Considering how hard the UC fought the case, I don't think the fees are unreasonable. Even acknowledging that the litigation has been harmful to the UC, if it has gotten the administration to be honest about fee increases, they it might have been worth it.
Considering how hard the UC fought the case, I don't think the fees are unreasonable.
What does this mean? It was a breach of contract case that went to trial and then appeal. Depending on where the 25% comes from, that's anywhere from $7 to $10 million. On a breach of K case? That's reasonable? Are you nuts? At a generous average of $500/hr, that's 14,000 to 20,000 hours. For a case like this, that's ridiculous.
And that money isn't coming out of some slimy corp like the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant. We, as students who followed Kashmiri and as residents of California are paying this overly generous attorneys' fee. You're also paying Kashmiri 80 grand for having his name on the complaint and sitting through a depo. Think about that for a second. $7 to $10 million for a few bucks per student.
Even acknowledging that the litigation has been harmful to the UC, if it has gotten the administration to be honest about fee increases, they it might have been worth it.
Honest about fee increases? There's only one dishonesty here and that's the class plaintiffs claiming they relied on an obscure promo webpage to make their decision to enroll. The dishonesty is the perceived self-righteousness of the plaintiffs when in reality this litigation did more harm to the UC, its students, and the state than any fee increase. At least we know the fee increases go to maintain the quality of education that the UC delivers (in the face of budget cutbacks). This money goes to people who will be roaming golf courses in the foreseeable future...and whiners like Kashmiri.
Call me skeptical, but I think the delusion of the plaintiffs is a far greater dishonesty than any "promises" of stable fees.
And just from a pragmatical standpoint, what was the UC's alternative? pass the increases to undergrads who weren't promised "no increases?" Yeah that's a brilliant move. Pass it on to those who actually have greater financial needs and don't necessarily face the job prospects of professional students. I'm sure Johnny Soc Major would have loved that.
Gotta love class-wide reliance.
You forgot the petition to the California Supreme Court. Imagine how much would have been saved by settling the case early? Just the interest on the judgment alone was huge. Also, how a case is fought often matters far more than what the cause of action is. In this case the UC at first wanted to try to offset each students damages with the individualized increase in student aid, requiring the plaintiffs' attorneys to of course go over thousands of student records. Eventually the UC stipulated, but that just points out that it was stupid and they were intentionally racking up the plaintiffs' bill. Most importantly, "The lawyers have agreed to take the case on a contingency fee basis." Of course if you did the math that works out to a much higher billing rate per hour than you would expect in a normal paid fee case. They are absorbing the risk of thousands of attorneys hours going down the drain, so they also get to absorb the award. I don't know if you didn't realize this was a contingency case or just don't care about presenting the facts in a fair light. 25% is a reasonable contingency fee, such fees often varrying between 20-50%. The only reason it's so low in this case is because of the extra scrutiny on fees for class actions and because the risk was relatively low because the University's arguments were largely weak or frivolous. As
As to the effect of raising professional student fees versus undergraduate student fees, firstly I think that's a false dichotomy. How about UC cut some expenses instead, like outsourcing all the whiny union janitors jobs to Marriott? But, here's more of a tearjerker for you from the AMA who sided with the students:
In the amicus brief, the AMA and CMA emphasized that increases in medical school tuition exacerbate medical students’ already steep debt burden and can worsen physician shortages in underserved geographic areas and medical specialties, often disproportionately affecting certain minority populations. The brief pointed out the disincentive aspiring medical students face if they are required to assume not only the tuition and other expenses determined at the time they enter school but also subsequent, unexpected increases.
Or from the court of appeals decision: "Another Boalt student did not participate in a planned externship at a nonprofit
legal services organization but applied for part-time jobs in order to be able to pay
the fee increase.."
Or how bout more simply, the UC's best alternative was not to make promises that it couldn't keep. The promise wasn't just on some obscure website, it was in Boalt's own catalogue. And that's only relevant to one contract claim. Far worse were the fees raised during a semester after they were paid. The only ones "delusional" or "dishonest" was the UC. I don't see how the UC gets off thinking it can raise the price on contract that has been fully performed by one side. If you read the court of appeals opinion it quickly appears that most of the University's arguments were weak at best (essentially arguing over and over again that law shouldn't apply to them).
If anyone was delusional, it was the UC. If the UC had just settled the case it wouldn't have wasted so much more money.
Wait, stop the presses. A Boaltie had to pay for his/her education? Oh the horror...the horror! Second, raise your hand if you knew about, much less read, Boalt's catalog. Thank you. Third, you simply prove my theory that this is nothing more than a) plaintiffs lawyers who saw a gold mine and b) whiny plaintiffs.
I guess it's a bit too much to ask for someone to set aside greed and actually do what's good for the whole. Making the class members 75% whole makes everyone else far worse off. How are those med students doing now with higher fees? How about Boalties looking for unpaid externships?
Of course, we should always aim to vindicate ultimate utilitarian ideals rather than legal rights. Of course, that means (essentially) no more defense attorneys.
You really don't see how this is different than any other litigation? Am I really the only one who thinks it's absurd that the litigation has made me worse off?
Yep, you're the only one. The cheese stands alone.
That's the way contingency cases go. You win some, you lose some. The net effect is that actors have incentives to avoid torts and breaches ex ante. Are all cases going to be cut and dry? Probably not. But I'm sure your fancy law firm has and will continue to manage to defend some cases where an individual conception of moral and/or economic justice would have required a different outcome. No one said it's fair... it's just the system.
There's no incentive to avoid torts or breaches because the decisionmakers aren't the ones on the hook for the cost, here. Why would the university administration care if it now has to serve as a wealth redistribution agent, too?
Just because the system allows you to do something doesn't mean you should, and using the system doesn't make you any less responsible for harming others through your greed.
Under that theory it's wrong to file Bivens & 42 USC 1983 or any other civil rights actions against the government where the only remedy would be money damages.
I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying the responsibility isn't diminished, and it isn't a shield that protects you from judgment or criticism.
I think the AMA brief pointed out above shows just how weak the plaintiffs case was. The AMA brief as described is just a screed against the cost of education and the lawsuit served as a way to "strike a blow" for lower tuition. Big success on that one.
I also don't see how one can really call UC"s defenses "frivolous." Say they raised one kid's tuition $5,000 and bumped his grant money $5,000, like they might perhaps have done to offset the cost of the fee increase on certain students. The damages for that student are zero. Not $5,000. This kid's getting a windfall now.
And why shouldn't UC have pressed reliance? Why should a contract plaintiff be able to recover on a provision of the "contract" they had never read, never seen, and was not included in the "agreement"?
Summing it up quickly, i feel UC had three strong, possibiy dispositive, arguments on: formation, reliance/causation, and damages.
J. Kleinfeld was on to something in Dukes. This is "rough justice" indeed.
Setting aside the merits and the question of whether a legal right was "vindicated" (sort of a strong word for what happened here, though, isn't it?), this lawsuit was a very, very tacky thing to do.
The question isn't whether they should have been able to go forward. It's whether they should have decided to.
Does anyone have any idea when rankings will come out? A lot of judges are interviewing graduates and many of them have already filled some or all of their available positions. For those of us who recently graduated, not having our most recent rank puts us at a disadvantage.
Boalt said rankings would be available during the third week of July, which seems to be right about...now. Considering that they've been available earlier than this in past years, according to this blog, we'll hopefully hear any day now.
6:24 AM:
That's a partial defense, not a defense. The UC eventually stipulated to the damages calculation including offsets for grants. The frivolous argument was the argument that the law didn't apply to them, which is the only argument they relied on from the trial court through to a petition to the California Supreme Court.
I don't know if you don't realize this, but reliance is an element of promissory estoppel, it's not an ordinary element of contracts (or at most, a substitute for consideration). Do you really think that ordinary contracts you don't read are unenforceable? Ladeda, it's okay that I'm signing a contract for a cellphone because neither me nor the agent are reading it so it's not enforceable? Please. The terms of a contract are determined by the parties objective intent put into words or writing. Here the UC put into writing its promise not to raise fees. It also put into writing a price for the next term of tuition, and then raised them after they were paid. Arguing that students did not read them would be frivolous because it is irrelevant to a cause of action not based on an implied-in-fact contract. That's why the UC didn't even raise the argument on appeal, it's only real argument, repeated again and again was the law shouldn't apply to them.
Secondly, concluding that the term was not in the contract begs the question. The court found there to be implied-in-fact contracts with express terms in the catalogues and websites. Where else should you turn to find the objective intent of a school in its contracts with students? Schools communicate through the Internet and in writings. The courts applied ordinary contract principles to find the promise not to increase fees controlling. The UC's response was the law shouldn't apply to us. That's not a good response.
Ranks are now available...
...if mindi would answer her emails.
Calm down. Mindi probably has at least a hundred people emailing her and she has to look up each person's rank.
I already got mine fwiw.
no but seriously. how can this take her so long? looking up our rankings is not like a jungle expedition. shouldn't she just have a master spreadsheet?
I emailed her before 12:30 and no sign...
OK, so I'm a rising 3L, and perhaps I'm imaginging it, but it sure feels like the general level of NEUROTIC behavior surrounding grades/ranks/competition is WAY up lately. Comments about rank in EVERY single N&B thread, no matter its relevance to the topic? Harranging Mindi for not responding _immediately_ to rank requests?
jeez, people. calm down. deep breath. we will survive. try to enjoy your summer, or what's left of it.
(and please, none of the "you're just envious of people who do well" responses. i do very well. and i'm neurotic, just like everyone else. I just try not to spew it across this blog)
...and heeere cooome the pretzels.
Props to 3:59.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Back up a bit now.
When are the pancakes coming in the mail?
So does everyone have their rank yet?
Got mine!
5:31 - Pancake, pretzel, or rank?
Beetle-
Of course the decisionmakers are on the hook. The webmasters work for the admin, the admin work for the regents, the regents work for the state, the state works for the people. The people foot the bill.
We should file a class action for the reduction in financial aid every 2L or 1L working for a firm is getting. It's a de facto tuition increase.
Beets, bears, Battlestar Galactica.
Sidenote:
Can someone more hip than me please tell me if there is more than one movie out right now that features a creepy man with a very white face and lipstick spread all the way across his face? I'm seeing this character everywhere and don't understand it.
I think it's an Ambien ad.
What's the top 10% cutoff for the class of '08? Anyone wanna show their hand?
1:04 - that made me laugh!
3.61 = top 10%; class of 2008
Someone on Berkely Law Blog said: ~ 3.6 = top 20% for c/o 2008.
One of these anonymous commenter does not speak the truth.
I am 3.58 (class of '08) and top 15, so I imagine that if one of them is telling the truth, it is 2:59 above.
4.68 = tops 10%, class of 2008
Flame. 4.68 would be top 5%, probably top 5 people overall.
4.68 is probably the top person in the whole class.
The top 10% cutoff probably rises over 2L and 3L years, as a result of the looser curve.
Boalties would be less obsessed about being in the top 10% if we had some kind of "with honors" award, like ALL other law schools from Stanford on down.
People would still be focused on being in the top 30% (or whatever). But it's relatively achievable to make that cut with enough work. 10% is much harder; there are fewer people to overtake, and most are working hard because there is no "consolation prize."
Is there any place worse than graduating in the top 15-20%? You've worked hard for three years, but you have nothing to show for it from a resume perspective (i.e., without a transcript).
No, Carbolic.
There is no place worse than graduating from Boalt Hall in the top 15-20% of your class.
Sheesh.
This calls for an open thread on places that are worse than graduating 15-20% at Boalt.
I'll start: graduating at any rank at Golden Gate.
Yes, yes. And it's better to graduate from law school than it is to fail out in seventh grade.
My point is that, without graduating awards, you might as well not bother to do any reading or work after getting an OCIP offer. Because nobody will know whether you spent the last 1.5 years of law school working hard or just skiing and getting drunk.
If I give up skiing and booze for 1.5 years, I'd like something to show for it. (Especially since the honor code prevents us from otherwise disclosing rank.) Or contrariwise, if I'm not going to get an award, I'd like to spend my remaining time at Boalt up in Tahoe.
Uh, haven't we been over this? If you're a graduate, you're more than welcome to list "Top 20%" on your resume. The Honor Code does not bind, purport to bind, or even intend to bind graduates. It has everything to do with current students and nothing to do with people who have a degree. So put it on. And if the administration doesn't like it (and I think it's pretty obvious they don't even themselves think the prohibition applies to graduates), they're more than welcome to stop asking you for checks in response.
Yeah, I actually just read the Honor Code for the first time. I didn't realize until now that it didn't apply to graduates.
"The Honor Code governs the conduct of students during examinations and in all other academic and pre-professional activities at Boalt Hall."
Furthermore, it doesn't REALLY mention the disclosure of grades or rank. Except insofar as disclosing it might be considered "improper action to gain an unfair advantage or place any other student at an unfair disadvantage in the career planning or placement activities of the School, whether strictly within the Career Services Office or more generally."
In fact, it only mentions grades to say that you cannot misrepresent or falsify them. Academic rule 3.06(D) That Mindi and Dean O quote does SAY it violates the Honor Code for a STUDENT to reveal his rank for non-clerking, non-academic purposes. But it seems like it's not really a violation of the Honor Code so much as a violation of an Academic Rule, which we must follow. Although the Honor Code, strangely, doesn't explicitly require us to follow the Academic Rules. It _does_ incorporate by reference the Campus Rules of Student Conduct. But I guess following the Academic Rules is implied since the HC is attached as an appendix...
Anyway, it's a strangely drafted rule. I'd hope for clarification. I met one lawyer who told me he saw a Boalt graduate's resume with rank listed and just assumed a violation of the honor code based on what he'd heard and he brought it up at the hiring meeting.
This is so interesting. I'm happy just to be in the top half of boalt, thinking it was a fluke that they let me in.
A few summers ago I worked with some Golden Gate law grads who were clerking along side a coif boaltie and a hastings grad. They were great lawyers and excellent clerks. I think one of the clerks was the top student in her class and held that spot all three years. She couldn't get a job at any law firm or a clerkship even after doing externships with federal judges and all that. I remember her saying that it is better in employer's eyes to be the last student at harvard than the top student at GGU. Now that sucks so much worse than not having an honors tag on your boalt transcript. So anyway, I just think a little perspective is healthy. The top 15% and 20% folks at boalt probably got great firm jobs and will have an easier time moving around simply with their transcripts than most Boalties. And, if it makes you feel any better, you did better than me!
Can folks in the top 15% and 10% for the class of '08 provide their GPA? Pleeease?
Can someone more hip than me please tell me if there is more than one movie out right now that features a creepy man with a very white face and lipstick spread all the way across his face? I'm seeing this character everywhere and don't understand it.
Really? It's the Joker, but that only equals 1 movie...
he's dead, btw
3.51 = top 15%
Something fishy is going on with the class ranks.
Mid 3.5s gpa is top 10% for class of 2009. There are probably different grading cut-offs for the two classes...
I received two different class ranks. I am suspicious of either's authenticity.
what do you mean you received two different ones? both from mindi?
yep. which is why it would be nice to know the cutoff, so i could see which one is accurate (or whether neither is accurate).
two class ranks...that makes no sense...how could mindi possibly send you two? and why don't you just ask HER which is accurate?
i did. the answer was vague.
Post a Comment
<< Home