Front Page..........................1

JDblogger......................31
Newsletter.......................32

Archived Articles............41
Archived Issues...............43

Ad Rates/Sizes.................52

Part I of a II-part interview

Fleming’s threatens Barperfect with 25,000 derogatory e-mail dissemination upon Barperfect’s announcement of forthcoming Barperfect v Fleming's comparison ads

LAW STUDENT JOURNAL (LSJ):  So you were threatened with a derogatory e-mail dissemination by Fleming’s? Tell us about that.

STEVE LIOSI (LIOSI): Fleming’s, through a lawyer it had retained re: an advertising contract dispute, told me that it would disseminate e-mails to 25,000 law students and bar candidates about how horrible and dishonest of a person I am.

LSJ: Based on what?

LIOSI: Based on the fact that in 15 years of helping law students and bar candidates, I have been taken to Small Claims Court by less than a handful of disgruntled clients.

LSJ:  And that makes you a horrible and dishonest person?

LIOSI: Apparently, among other things.

LSJ: Sounds like you’re angry.

LIOSI: You bet I’m angry. I will not let anyone extort my right to free speech, extort my right to commercial free speech with vindictive threats. And I will not let such an extortion pass without comment. Frankly, the rights contained in the United States Constitution are not a petty matter, and they are worth protecting.

LSJ: What sparked all of this?

LIOSI:  A contract dispute regarding advertising (the boring facts of which I will not make part of the interview). Because of  this dispute, our relationship has disintegrated. In turn, I said to Fleming’s, now  that Fleming’s is no longer an advertiser, I’ll be able to run comparison ads, comparing my course, Barperfect, to Fleming’s. It’s time that I act in my own best interests.

This proclamation put Fleming’s in a frenzy, and Fleming’s responded with the threat that is the subject of the headline attached to this interview. Fleming’s viewed my announcement as a “retaliation” when it was nothing of the sort. I just stated matter-of-factly that I was now free to run comparison ads and was looking forward to it. I used the phrase comparison ads, not attack ads. Attack ads aren’t my style.

I wasn’t going to write copy that said “Did the Course Founder Pass the CA Bar Exam on His First Attempt? Fleming’s: no. Barperfect: yes.”

It was going to be much more innocuous than that. For example, “Do You Have to Get in Your Car to Drive to the Course? Fleming’s: yes. Barperfect: no.”

LSJ:  So the subject of this 25,000 e-mail dissemination would have been what?

LIOSI: The following is verbatim text taken from Fleming’s attorney’s letter: “You can be sure that if this situation escalates, as you have stated to be your intention, my clients will use all of their resources to protect themselves, their reputation, and to inform the interested student population, 25,000 of which are on my client’s mailing list as well as your advertisers, what the true facts are, both past and future,  including the content of both your threats and apologies, and why they should be on notice of your business practices. You are not the only one who has a blog. My clients have the resources and the resolve to proceed against you with the evidence in their possession to back it up.”

I never stated it was my intention for the “situation to escalate”,  nor did I ever state that I would “retaliate” against Fleming’s with attack ads.

In any event, I guess Fleming’s wants everyone to know how horrible of a person I am, and how dishonest I am. After all,  I’ve been involved in a handful of Small Claims Court disputes through the years, after having interfaced, on some level, with well over 2,000 clients in my 15-year tutorial career. So I guess I am horrible and dishonest. Of course, I am being facetious.

Fleming’s said, in a letter from their attorney retained for the advertising contract dispute, that they would tell everyone on their 25,000 e-mail list that I had been taken to Small Claims Court by Breanna Ha, Tony Choi for providing “no services” at all to them and simply taking their money. And, Fleming’s would also tell all of my advertisers about my business practices.

LSJ: Is that true, that you have taken money from people and performed absolutely “no services”?

LIOSI: Absolutely not. Both Small Claims Court cases resulted in Default Judgments against me. Early on in my career, I learned that you cannot successfully defend yourself against liars, especially in Small Claims Court, so I didn’t bother to show up for either matter. For the most part, Small Claims Court is a kangaroo court, and I’m simply not, despite being an attorney, very litigious. I don’t send energy toward petty matters. Doing so is a waste of time.  But having your free speech rights extorted from you is not a petty matter, and I think the interested student population of 200,000 should be informed.

LSJ: Tell us a little bit about these Small Claims Court cases.

LIOSI:  Tony Choi.  Over 10 years ago, I flew all the way up to northern California to tutor him and he copied all of my materials that had been sent to him, as evidenced by the fact that every single material, every single page had been obviously folded at the staple when they had been returned to me. And he chose to willfully abandon my program after having received valuable exam-writing techniques and pt techniques and all of my materials, and then request a refund – which I refused. I wasn’t in the mood to fly up to San Francisco and defend myself in Small Claims Court against falsities. But boarding a plane to go help someone with the bar exam sure sounds like I performed absolutely  “no services” at all, as a letter from Fleming’s lawyer alleges, doesn’t it?

Breanna Ha.  Over 7 years ago, Ms. Ha passed the bar exam after using my services and then lied about not having received my services. She was one of the more despicable clients I have ever encountered.  In  an attempt to embarrass and harass me, she named Fleming’s in the law suit as well, simply because I had been nice enough to give her some Fleming’s exam writing books to use during the process. Back then, this was almost 10 years ago, I simply provided supplemental black-letter law and writing help without my own materials. Ms. Ha was the most perplexing client I ever had. During our time together, she kept exclaiming how much she was enjoying and benefiting from the process. Yet, 70% through, she demanded a full refund. Of course, I denied her request. Again, I wasn’t in the mood to defend myself against falsities, so I failed to appear. (Interesting, that she was a law school classmate of Wilson Choe. More on that last name soon enough.)
Why don’t I I’ll tell you about a few others that are not part of the Fleming’s threat.

Recently, I was taken to Small Claims Court by a Russian attorney, Tatyana Lirtsman, who enrolled in our “Ultimate Feedback” program, which basically provides grading feedback, among other things, but does not provide extensive phone consultation. Apparently, Ms. Lirstman thought she was my only client who was entitled to daily phone calls lasting 2-3 hours in length. After about a week of this, I told her that these phone calls needed to stop. In turn, she demanded a full refund even though she had been provided the entire Barperfect materials suite. PayPal denied her subsequent refund request in my favor, but, still, she saw fit to file a Small Claims Court action against me. I decided against making the trip up to northern California.

LSJ: Any others?

LIOSI: Of course there are. Remember, I have been in a service business for 15 years. When I was in the business for only a few years, a Trinity law student, Roberto Fogelbach, sued me in Small Claims Court for a full refund even though all services had been rendered. This is a case I’ll never forget and one that made me realize people will lie through their teeth for money. During our time together, Mr. Fogelbach had taken a liking to my own self-created bar materials that I had used to pass the bar exam. I made them myself – horribly unattractive flow charts with my own illegible handwriting. Why anyone would want these ugly-looking pages, was beyond me. But, as a favor, I photocopied about 20 pages or so of these ugly-looking pages and gave them to Mr. Fogelbach, who was having Future Interests problems in law school.

So, I do the guy a favor, and in Small Claims Court Mr. Fogelbach holds up these ugly-looking pages and proclaims to the judge, “Look at these horrible materials he sold me.”

I was utterly flabbergasting at how blatant the lie was. The judge ordered a 50% refund based on the “horrible” materials. That was when I realized Small Claims Court was a farce. You simply cannot defend yourself against liars.

LSJ: Funny stuff. That sounds like a Seinfeld episode. Any more Small Claims Court nightmares?

LIOSI: Probably a couple. I don’t know. I don’t now remember. But the theme is always the same – a demand for a refund that is simply not warranted.

A couple of years back, there a was middle-aged student who decided halfway through the course to try to coerce me into a refund, but, of course, the facts just weren’t in her favor, so she decided to appeal to the Better Business Bureau (BBB) instead of Small Claims Court. After going back and forth for about a month or so, the BBB decided in my favor. And I’ll never forget what the man who presided over the matter said to me afterwards: “Mr. Liosi, we realize that every now and then a mental patient walks through the front door of a business.” Amen!

Then, there was a student who got a hold the e-mail addresses of other Barperfect students for a particular bar exam because one of our graders sent out a group e-mail with a cc instead of a bcc. So, this student sent an e-mail to everyone in the program trying to extort a refund from me. She had signed up for our program, disappeared, and the reappeared 10 days before the bar exam demanding daily sessions until the Sunday before the bar exam. “Uh, hello. Our schedule is kind of packed right now with clients that have fully embraced our process from the beginning. We just don’t have any slots open for you right now.”   In the end, it turned out great for us,  as other clients sent her an e-mail with a cc to me, basically saying, “Your 11th-hour request is rude and your attempt to discredit Barperfect is totally uncalled for. You should spend your time getting prepared for the upcoming bar exam instead.”

LSJ: What an interesting business you’re in.

LIOSI: Yeah, real interesting. Keep in mind, these are just the extreme stories. The majority of our clients are reasonable and respectful people. Most bar review periods are conducted complaint-free. In fact, nearly all of them are.

LSJ: Would you recommend this business to a newly-minted attorney?

LIOSI: No, I would not. Open up a Personal Injury practice or a Class Action practice. Position yourself for wealth. Except for Bob Feinberg and Richard Conviser, nobody in the bar review business has become wealthy from it. Richard Conviser’s personal wealth has been estimated at $200,000,000.00 and Bob Feinberg’s personal wealth has been estimated at a fourth of Conviser’s. But other than those two men, the bar review industry is not a place to become independently wealthy.

And if you have the heart and soul of a teacher, focus on molding the minds of our youth. Teach middle school. You won’t have to worry about a client charging back their credit card payment to you. And you certainly won’t find yourself involved in matters like this one.

LSJ: Have there ever been any refund requests that were warranted?

LIOSI: Yes, a few of course; this is not a one-sided discussion as far as that is concerned. Through the years, there where certainly a few clients who were definitely due a refund, and I obliged. Sometimes, though very rarely, a student falls through the cracks. It happens to every course. One of these clients, incidentally, needlessly threatened me with negative blogs throughout all of America if I didn’t give the refund. I said to him, “Your threat isn’t necessary. Your refund is on the way. No worries.”

When you are providing what amounts to an interpersonal service, there will be students who love you, students who like you, students that you just don’t click with and students that have utter contempt for you. In fact, Adaptibar bar review was founded by Tarek Fadel when PMBR just didn’t click with him. But I found Bob Feinberg’s PMBR absolutely amazing. No bar review course or program is going to please everyone. No bar review course is not going to have its fair share of customer-service hiccups.

LSJ: What are your opinions of blogs?

LIOSI: In general, blogs can be useful and entertaining. Too many, though, are mean-spirited and simply give anonymous people the ability to hide behind their derogatory and usually-false statements. To me, a lot of the postings are digital dirt where the authors cannot be held accountable. They can post from Kinko’s and never be traced. They can pose as a disgruntled client, when, in fact, they are a jealous competitor purposely posting anonymous digital dirt.

In the bar review industry, I believe that most of the blog posts are disingenuous. A few years back, whenever there was a positive post about me, it would be immediately followed by a positive post re: a certain competitor, a one-on-one tutor who used to work for bar/bri. Or a positive post about me would be immediately followed by a negative post about me. One such post said, “Steve Liosi is a stalker”. Yeah, OK.

Another time, I had just posted in a forum that model answers were now available at the Law Student Journal Web site. It was a simply a friendly and helpful announcement, like “Suggested Answers Are Available at www.clsj1994.com”. This was about 7 or so years ago, and I didn’t even write any of the suggested answers, but one anonymous person posted in response to my announcement: “Steve Liosi is full of shit. Don’t believe a word he says.”  What is the relevance of a that kind of post? Several other people posted comments like, “What shitty answers! I give them all a 55!” Ungrateful bar candidates, or competitors of the authors?

So, what is my opinion of blogs? In the law school and bar review world, not much. There are only two that I hold in high-esteem. Mine: www.jdblogger.com.  And one run by the Michelle Fabio for the New York Times: www.about.com.

Other than those two, I don’t think much of the blogs in the law school and bar review world. Most of them are poorly-moderated and are simply an opportunity for anonymous digital dirt. From a sheer numbers standpoint, there are more negative than positive postings. When people pass because of your program, they move on with their life – they don’t have the time to loiter in blogs and chat rooms and post their accolades about you (though some do). If people happen to fail, though, some of them keep their misery alive by loitering in forums and chat rooms and spewing venom about the perceived injustices perpetrated by the bar program they took. Total victim mentalities. For some reason, law students and bar candidates that loiter in forums and chat rooms, they make the worst clients. I am always wary about potential or existing clients who make numerous references to certain law blogs and/or chat rooms. For the most part, blog and chat room loiterers need to get a life.

LSJ: I agree with the digital dirt, most of it being unsubstantiated and anonymous.

LIOSI: Frankly, there should be a blog where only tutors and courses can make postings about nightmare clients: “Do not accept __________ as a client. He’ll steal your materials, he’ll steal your time, and then he’ll charge back his credit card. Stay away from this asshole bar candidate!”

LSJ: That could certainly turn the tables. Has that ever happened to you? Has a client ever stolen from you by charging back their credit card?

LIOSI:  Yes, it has. Too often. Just two bars ago, one client, after having received all of my materials, the full benefits of my course, charged his credit card back the Monday before the bar exam. I was livid! I met with him after his work hours, stayed with him in my office until 10:00 PM at least twice a week. At our very last session, he looked me straight in the eye, firmly shook my hand and said, “Thank you for everything!” And he charges his credit card back the Monday before the bar exam. What a scumbag! Yes, there should be a blog where only tutors and courses can make postings about nightmare clients. Yes, indeed.

LSJ: What do you think about the bar review business in general?

LIOSI: As far as certain unsavory clients are concerned, I think you know my answer to that. From a business standpoint, I don’t particularly care about the business aspect of things, but I enjoy the teaching aspect. I enjoy working with law students and bar candidates that are having academic difficulties. I enjoy helping the candidates who don’t whine and complain, and who are willing to embrace a different and effective regimen, and who are appreciative of your efforts.  Thankfully, most law students and bar candidates are good people, are people who are not going to make unreasonable refund requests, are people who are not going to spew their venom in blogs and chat rooms. Most candidates, even if they fail, they’ll send me an e-mail thanking me for their efforts and they’ll enroll in my program again. In all fairness, I’ve been going on about a small minority of clients, but, damn, that small minority can make the business a cross to bear. But I like the teaching aspect of it.

LSJ: Do you know anyone in the industry more than just by name?

LIOSI: I know Paul Pfau very well, the owner of Cal Bar Tutorial Review. We usually have lunch or dinner once a month and share war stories and good laughs about nightmarish clients. I have the utmost respect for Paul, as well as Steven Emanuel. I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Emanuel in San Diego last year at a law school convention, and he was the nicest person in the world. Not the least bit pretentious or egotistical, despite his obvious off-the-charts legal IQ. A real gentleman. And I had the good fortune of writing some MBEs for Emanuel Bar Review at his direction, and that was an amazing experience.  And I’ve met other Emanuel Bar Review executives, Michael Gregory, Steve Errick, Megan Ablondi, and all of them were excellent people. At the convention, I even met Richard Conviser, and he was most gracious. I congratulated him on a wonderful career. It was a highlight meeting him.

Locally, Fedora Nick, of National Bar Review, is as nice as they come. Melody Becker, of Bar Made Easy, is another nice person, who I worked with at Fleming’s Fundamentals of Law for a few years. Lisa Duncanson, a former classmate, is a great person. And, of course, Wentworth Miller, of LEEWS fame, has always been a favorite of mine. I’m sure I’m forgetting a few people, but most of the people of in this business are good people. And most of the clients are good people too, for that matter.

LSJ: Speaking of Fleming’s . . .

LIOSI: Yes, another threat was to include in the 25,000 e-mail dissemination, the Wilson Choe matter. What a nightmare that was for me.

As for Wilson Choe, both he and his father are con artists galore and set me up to take a fall. I strongly suspect that his father financially enticed my lawyer, Willie Grant, to not even show up for my trial (an unwanted default judgment) or remove my then-finance, who had nothing to do with the matter, as a defendant. Since then, Mr. Choe's father has become an arrested international criminal.

View the following for some insight into the kind of people I mistakenly fell prey to several years back:

No. 06-715
In the Supreme Court of the United States
MAN-SEOK CHOE, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Man-Seok Choe is Wilson Choe's father. If I had had a better attorney, there would have been a Malicious Prosecution suit to follow. But I did not find out about the judgment against me until the statute had passed. True story. I was fucked over big time by an international criminal figure and a rogue attorney, who all the while told me everything was "going fine". For the record, Wilson Choe's father stole millions of dollars through bribery and certainly had the means to make a lawsuit go his way even though all (every single one) of the facts had been fabricated by his son in the lawsuit against me. He certainly had enough money to bribe my attorney, Willie Grant, to not even show up for trial, which I’m certain is what likely happened. Frankly, nothing else makes sense. 

It began with a personal loan made to me by a friend that escalated into a script for a made-for-television movie.  Like I would know how steal someone's pin code and steer money into my bank account from a Merrill Lynch account that belonged to Wilson Choe. Like I had forged documents. Like a conglomerate like Merrill Lynch would have released funds to me without having verified such with the true account holder. Where was the negligence lawsuit by Wilson Choe against Merrill Lynch? There was none, because there were no verifiable facts, and there was no genuine case against me. There was only one way for them prevail on such a bogus charge. Well, you do the math. Wilson Choe's fathers sits in prison on a bribery charge

LSJ: That sounds hard to believe. You are an attorney. How did you let that happen to you?

LIOSI: Completely my fault, yes. But in addition to being an attorney, Willie Grant is also a pastor, and I foolishly put all of my trust in him. I viewed him as older and wiser and honest, but I was wrong. A couple of years prior, he had handled a student loan matter for me, and he had done a fine enough job. Even so, I should have stayed on top of the matter myself and not hand if off completely to another attorney. Live and learn.

LSJ: It’s difficult to believe that Fleming’s would threaten you with the 25,000 e-mail dissemination when all you did was announce forthcoming comparison ads to them.

LIOSI:  Yes, it did happen and I have the letter from Fleming’s attorney to prove it. Apparently, announcing my intent to take out comparison ads was viewed as an act of “retaliation", which it certainly was not, as I never said that I’d be taking out “attack ads”. 

LSJ: What a reaction to your announcement of comparison ads.

LIOSI: Yes, a threatening letter from an attorney for announcing comparison ads. Never did I say to Fleming’s that it was my intention to “retaliate” against them, because it wasn’t. Like I said, all I indicated I would do is take out comparison ads. Innocuous, mild-mannered comparison ads.

LSJ: You used to work for Fleming’s, didn’t you?

LIOSI: Years back, I was a writing instructor for the Fleming’s Ultimate Bar Tutorial (UBT) course.  

LSJ: How was that experience?

LIOSI: I found it rewarding. I enjoyed it, and the students enjoyed me in return. Many of them, in fact, found my teaching style so effective that they ended up in my Fullerton office when the UBT wasn’t in session, for extra tutoring. Eventually, I believe that Fleming’s ego got involved because some UBT students were migrating to my office, so I was let go as an independent contractor.

In the letter from Fleming’s attorney, Fleming’s would like you believe that I was let go because of “poor teaching methods”.

Yes, so poor were my teaching methods that UBT students insisted on being tutored by me on the side in my Fullerton office.

Yes, so poor were my teaching methods that after failing with the UBT, some of the UBT students would seek my services. And most of these students passed with me.

I’ll name just a few of these students.  Gordon DeBoer, a Chapman Law grad, passed with me after sitting through the UBT the previous bar exam. Patrick Crawford, a Cal Western grad,  passed with me after sitting through the UBT the previous bar exam. Summer Bridges, a Western State grad and former Fleming’s student rep, passed with me after sitting through Fleming’s.

Ask Gordon DeBoer if I simply took his money and performed “no services”. Ask Patrick Crawford if I simply took his money and performed “no services”. Ask Summer Bridges, a successful Barperfect tutoree and former Fleming’s student rep, if I simply took her money and performed “no services”.

After I was let go, Melody Becker, a loyal Fleming’s employee for a number of years who was eventually let go by Fleming’s, said, “Steve, I have no idea what happened. The students always had good things to say about you.”

LSJ: What is your overall opinion of this situation?

LIOSI: Lawyering up for a contract dispute well under the Small Claims Court threshold amount and making the threat about the 25,000 e-mails, I find sad and pathetic. But I guess 25,000 law students should be on the lookout for an e-mail from Fleming’s articulating just how horrible and dishonest I am.

You know, some people unless they’re rattling your cage, unless they’re causing some kind of ruckus, unless they’re involved in some kind of discord, they’re just not happy. The difference between some people and pit bulls, is that eventually pit bulls let go.

Part II of this interview will appear in the November issue of the Law Student Journal. Steve Liosi will talk about what the course, Bar Made Easy, had to endure during its inception. Melody Becker, a former Fleming’s employee, is the owner of Bar Made Easy.