« aipla request for new article submissions | Main | patent reform lecture - j. matthew buchanan »
June 07, 2006
I sold my left kidney to pay for Bar-bri
An e-mail is making the rounds among my former law school classmates about the Bar-bri litigation filed out in California. In short, the case revolves around law students who purchased the Bar-bri course review in order to prepare to take their individual state bars. The law students are now claiming Bar-bri has formed a monopoly within the field of bar preparation and driven up costs. A link to the complaint can be found on www.lawschool.com.
At first glance, it is easy to support the Plaintiffs and stick it to Bar-bri considering they are hoarding a couple of my dollars over there for my Oklahoma bar and Texas bar. However, after deliberation, I’m on Bar-bri’s team for a couple of reasons:
1. Bar-bri is not mandatory to sit for any state bar. No one says you have to take Bar-bri in order to pass the state bar. In fact, off the top of my head, I can name a law student in my class that refused to go along with the crowd and take Bar-bri. He passed the Texas bar.
2. I will pay for quality. When the time came for me to attempt the patent bar, everyone I asked said Kayton’s prep through Patent Resources Group is the way to go. Kayton is not the only patent bar prep around but it ranks up there as the most expensive. Kayton did cost me an arm and a leg of my own money, but I passed the patent bar the very first time after sitting through those videos. The money was definitely worth it and if given the choice I would choose Kayton again. In comparison, Bar-bri is also expensive, but it gets results. For me, the proof is in my admission to two state bars.
3. Monopoly? Aren’t there other Bar review courses out there? Even "cheaper" ones?
In May, the Court granted class certification on behalf of about 300,000 law students so it looks like the case against Bar-bri is going forward. Just so you know, I’m not holding my breath for a return of my Bar-bri funds.
Posted by Laura Wood at 06:17 PM.
Permalink: I sold my left kidney to pay for Bar-bri
| Comments (4)
| Sphere: Related Content
I think your analysis under Sherman sections 1 and/or 2 is way off. It doesn’t matter if West (BarBri) is mandatory (phone service, oil, and steel aren’t mandatory either), if BarBri is a good value (Microsoft IE is a good value = free), or if some degree of competition exists. This isn’t the first antitrust suit against West (BarBri), and most revolve around West's anti-competitive behavior in attempting to establish a monopoly (such as threatening to pull westlaw from law schools if their professors participate in competing bar review courses).
Posted by: Anonymous at June 8, 2006 08:52 AM
You need to break out antitrust in a nutshell and give it a quick peruse. You're not addressing the issue.
Posted by: Josha at June 8, 2006 09:00 AM
For Patent Bar courses I still recommend PLI - really focussed on how to pass the test. I passed the 1st time, so didn't have to compare the Kayton prep.
Posted by: Ginnie at June 9, 2006 09:43 AM
And just to be snipey: You said that you pay for quality -- perhaps the problem is, because barbri is the only game in town for (many, but not all) states, there isn't really any quality standard that they're meeting.
For example, I recently got done with them for the Feb. 2006 bar. It was a waste. Short of forcing me to show up, it taught me nothing. While I agree that the plaintiffs in this case (as was the case with thousands of others before them) won't win, I don't see how there isn't a monopoly-by-peer-pressure effect goign on. Probably not antitrust worthy, but definintely there.
Posted by: Carey at June 22, 2006 04:43 PM
