Date: August 28, 2013, 1:04:48 PM EDT
Subject: Law School Owners and InfiLaw
I am forwarding to you emails from the owners of the Charleston School of Law and InfiLaw indicating that they have reached an agreement expressing the intent of the owners to sell the Charleston School of Law to InfiLaw.
While I have not been directly involved in the decision process, I know that for several years the owners have been looking for ways to provide for the future of our law school. As their letter indicates, to date they have found no other workable solution that a majority of the Board could agree upon.
You will note from the attached letters that the owners are open to other serious proposals. Like any seller, of course, what they are soliciting are concrete proposals and ideas. Ultimately, all of us seek an arrangement that has the best potential to ensure a bright future for our law school.
In working with the representatives of InfiLaw for the last month or so, it is apparent that increasingly they have come to not only understand our unique culture and our position in the Charleston legal community, but also how strongly our stakeholders wish above all else to see this preserved. This has been and continues to be a learning process for all of us and it is clear to me that they now even more fully appreciate the exceptional foundation that we have collectively built over the past ten years.
During the next few weeks, all of our stakeholders are going to be given the opportunity to learn more about InfiLaw. As an initial step, Robert Carr, one of CSOL’s owners and Peter Goplerud of InfiLaw will be holding a question and answer session to talk about these developments in more detail in the Courtroom from 6:30-7:15 PM today. Although it is obviously short notice, if your schedule permits, I would encourage you to attend. Regular information will be provided to you as this process moves forward. If you have any additional questions or thoughts at any point, please send them to Questions@Charlestonlaw.edu.
Finally, it is my fervent desire that you will continue to be an active, passionate supporter of the Charleston School of Law. Our community needs this; our faculty/staff need this; and, most importantly, our students need this.
Thank you for all you have done and continue to do to make this such a special place.
Andrew L. Abrams
President and Dean
Charleston School of Law
385 Meeting St.
Charleston, SC 29403
InfiLaw Alumni Notice Final (.pdf)
Owners Notice Alumni Final (.pdf)
(Editor’s Note: The above communication is an email obtained by FITS. It does not necessarily reflect the editorial position of this website. To submit your letter, news release, email blast, media advisory or issues statement for publication, click here).
This is the free market system in action. So what’s the problem?
The legal profession, including the manner by which you become an attorney, is not a free market.
But this is not about the legal profession or the manner in which one becomes an attorney. It is about the ownership of a business.
and how is it different from most other professions? Are they “wrong”?
They are not wrong to sell. Just pointing out that, like most other professions, the legal profession is a cartel.
Professions normally have a path that must be followed. Education, experience and examination. Why is that a “cartel”. What is your alternative?
When insiders conspire to limit access and control supply, that is pretty much the definition of a cartel. Not to be pedantic, but the alternative would be a free market. I am not advocating that, for reasons both selfish (I have cleared the barriers to entry and would be happy to raise the bar even higher behind me) and ideological (the current structure is preferable to governmental regulation).
So you would be in favor of “free market” physicians, engineers, nurses, accountants, dentist, etc.?
I am not sure how insiders “conspire” to limit access and control supply. The standard in most licensure situations is “minimum competence” to practice and not harm the public. How low do you want to go?
Pretty sure I said I was not advocating that. Yep, I sure did. Even explained why.
Yes, if only the insiders would stop limiting access to the legal profession, we’d have more of the lawyers we do desperately need.
Do people even read the posts to which they are responding? The lack of reading comprehension is annoying enough, but coupled with the attempted sarcasm, it is just pathetic.
I got no problem with it … certainly preferable to the state “acquiring the asset.”
Second that opinion.
It’s not a free market system in action when federal loan dollars will be funding the school-regardless of who the owners are. At least with a respectable school, the fleecing of taxpayers via student loans which have no possibility of being repaid will be minimized.
If the students don’t like it, then vote with your wallet. If you have transfer options, do it. If you cannot realistically transfer, then maybe consider whether it is worth shelling out for private school tuition for a degree in a field for which you might not be well suited.
vacuum cleaner repair … automobile detailing … website design … data entry … vacation rentals … bicycle repair …
Trump University School of Law? Yow but res ipsa loquitur ! Hate it for those presently enrolled.
Ya think the SC Attrorney General would have the balls to go after CSOL for its misrepresentations?
Better call Saul!
Saul is the best TV lawyer ever.
Lawyers screwing lawyers……why did I ever join this profession. The queen ruined it for me ….I keep hopping from firm to firm, staying drunk, the coke doesn’t even help and I can’t afford it anymore anyway. Nobody told me that I had to have some pedigree to move up in a firm. If I couldn’t handle it on the Island what is an old man like me supposed to do? I can’t even get a second job cause nobody wants their junior partner to be out selling cars on Saturdays. Oh this sucks…..Help me….
Ain’t that the truth…CSOL students would have been better off running up to Michigan for a degree.
“holding a question and answer session to talk about these developments in more detail in the Courtroom from 6:30-7:15 PM today”
Forty-five minutes is certainly adequate time to get clear, comprehensive answers to your in-depth questions. Don’t be late.
I think its more of a, this is happening whether you like it or not, so get on board kind of meeting. No real need for questions. It will probably only take about 15 minutest to say that.
I have been to meetings in the Navy where the minutes were handed at the START of the meeting and you are told there would be no changes to them.
One day, we will get a real law school in this state.
Anybody know how much Alex Sanders and Ralph McCullough got for bailing out early? Jean Toal did all she could to keep the stock price high by keeping them accredited as long as she could. Yes, it is true, it’s completely at her discretion and whim as to who passes the bar and who doesn’t and in what percentage. Read the fine print in the rules which are written by her and her staff.
Vinny Sheheen, your first test of your true “character” and “integrity” will be coming down sooner than you may like. Later in the fall when you will have to state whether you are going to support Jean Toal against Costa Pleicones or whether you are going to do the right thing. Hmmm. If you answer, “What would Uncle Bob do?” then you may be in trouble.
LOL…..LOL……way to go Wil Folks. Just look at these comments. Its astonishing to think that your “queen” would have the smarts to ask one simple question.
“Honey, what piece of real estate does this school sit on and what is its location in relation to RAIL LINES…? or the new Post and Courier Square..?”
What is utterly disgusting is how this website fails to put a map graphic that explains the developer “stimulus” and impact to this deal…!!
Wil Folks…..lawyers are not stupid. Do you really think they give a crud about each other? Its about MONEY…..and the money is the LAW..!!
Wil Folks….what do you think Amy Lazenby will think when she reads this article? DO you care about her “pension” better than a lawyer..?
This article coverage by Fits is so ….”fluffing”…!