California Law Grad Sues School; No Age Limit For Morning After Pill
WHITFIELD: A California law grad is suing his school. He and others claim the college practically guaranteed they would find him a job as a lawyer. But after months of searching without results, he filed suit against the school for misleading him. Does he have a case? Let's bring in our legal guys, Avery Friedman is a civil rights attorney and law professor and Richard Herman is a criminal defense attorney and law professor. Good to see both of you. So I'm sure you guys have very strong opinions about this given you are grads of law school. So according to our research, these lawsuits are being dismissed across the country. Apparently, there are at least six states that have similar class action suits and all stemming from the case of Michael Lieberman, who is suing Southwestern Law School. He says they advertised that 97 percent of the grads would be employed within nine months of graduation. He was looking for a job as are a number of others. So, Richard, you first, is that argument enough, kind of false advertisement is the problem here he says?</s>RICHARD HERMAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, the problem is fraudulent inducement. I mean, Fred, law school is a business. They charge these students upwards of maybe $75,000 to $100,000 for a three-year degree. Now if the school tells you before you come in, we're telling you, we have a 97 percent within nine months you're going to get a job within nine months and 97 percent of our graduates get those jobs. That induces you to pay that fee. Now you go to law school, you graduate and you can't get a job so they lied to you. Yes, they have a lawsuit. In California, they got very strong consumer protection laws. Fred, I think they have a viable lawsuit here. I think the university is going to have to pay, yes.</s>WHITFIELD: My goodness then why is it being dismissed in some places -- Avery?</s>AVERY FRIEDMAN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: For a good cause. Look, this isn't welding school, for goodness sakes. This is a profession and whether a law school is out there marketing about what percent of their class gets a job. First of all, none of those statistics until recently change in the law said anything about what they are doing. Some guy folding shirts in the basements of Macy's, yes, he has a job. I don't think there's fraudulent inducement. Who the heck goes to law school based on those kinds of representations? This is a profession, Fredricka. Federal courts in Michigan and New York have thrown these cases out. Yes, I agree, there are consumer laws in California that are tougher. I don't think the case is going anywhere.</s>WHITFIELD: And so according to a report in California, Southwestern Law School says that it does follow the American Bar Associations requirement. So they say they are not culpable necessarily if you're unable to land a job. So what will this case and the other cases in the six other states need to continue to be viable? You know, how can they continue to argue their case that the school is at fault for not landing them a job -- Richard?</s>HERMAN: Ye, it's basic fraud, Fred. I mean, I think Avery is wrong. That case in New York that was dismissed is on appeal right now. Listen, you can't make promises to people about employment especially in this economy where people have choices. They don't have to go to law school. But if the school is saying, listen, we're telling you 97 percent get jobs in the legal industry and you go to that law school. It's not 97, it's below 50 percent. That's fraud. Come on, that's recoverable. There are damages. It's basic fraud law. This is a live lawsuit in California.</s>WHITFIELD: Avery?</s>FRIEDMAN: Look, it's not an industry, it's a profession. This isn't cooking school or welding. The fact is that the economy has dried up, there's internet research that have limited more jobs. I don't think the cases are going anywhere. I mean, of course, it's marketing, and I think there should be an improvement in the information disseminated, but no way these cases are going to prevail. There's no legal theory. We just disagree.</s>WHITFIELD: Let's move on to the next topic. We're talking about the morning after pill this week. A federal judge in Brooklyn ordered the FDA to make the morning after pill available and over the counter to people of any age without a prescription. That overturns a decision by the Health and Human Services that requires a prescription for girls under 17. So Avery, you first, you know, the argument being made, the federal court saying, you know what? It's too arbitrary to set this age of 17 or otherwise so what next potentially? Would there be an appeal?</s>FRIEDMAN: Well, we don't know that there will be an appeal, but I have to tell you something, Fredricka. This 59-page opinion that was published yesterday by the Federal District judge is all about women's health. It's a recognition of the catastrophic prices. We're dealing with unwanted pregnancies in America. The fact is that FDA scientists supported unfettered access to emergency contraception along with the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association, a victory for women, a victory for health. I don't see that even if there's an appeal, Fredricka, that you'll see a reversal of this very, very important decision.</s>WHITFIELD: So Richard, in fact that's what the court is saying. The court is saying until you show us that there were some health reasons as to why someone 15 or 16 shouldn't be taking the morning after pill versus if they were 18, until you provide that, this should be made available to everyone.</s>HERMAN: Exactly, Fred, and they can't provide that. That's the point. That's the point the judge made in this decision. Listen, he's one of the stall worth judges in the district court in Brooklyn. He's been there for a long time. This is a fantastic decision. They can appeal it to whoever they want. It's never going to be reversed. The judge is right on the law. The decision is arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable and Sebelius really she should retire based on her objection to this.</s>FRIEDMAN: Wait a minute.</s>HERMAN: We don't know if it's going to affect 10-year-old girls. You take aspirin, this is a ridiculous partisanship.</s>WHITFIELD: All right, thanks so much, gentlemen. I'm sure you'll be getting an e-mail or phone call from Ms. Sebelius. All right, Richard and Avery, thanks so much. Appreciate your time. The legal guys are here every Saturday at this time to give us their take on the most intriguing legal cases of the day, you never what you're going to get. All right, coming up next, air rage, what would you do if you're getting ready to board a flight or if you're already airborne and someone near you just simply loses it. HLN's Dr. Drew breaks down the dos and the don'ts right after this.