BAR/BRI CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: TRIAL DATE RESCHEDULED TO FEBRUARY 13, 2007

[Publisher's Note: The following information can be found at the BAR/BRI class action Web site: http://www.barbri-classaction.com/barbri/default.htm.]

Archived Article SEPTEMBER 2006....

If you purchased a bar review course from BAR/BRI in the United States anytime from August, 1997, until the present, this notice may affect your rights.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE COURT HAS RESCHEDULED THE TRIAL DATE TO FEBRUARY 13, 2007. THE EXCLUSION DATE (described below) REMAINS AUGUST 13, 2006.

If you purchased a bar review course from BAR/BRI anywhere in the United States anytime from August, 1997, until the present, you may be affected by a class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California called Rodriguez, et. al v. West Publishing Corp., d/b/a BAR/BRI, and Kaplan, Inc., Case No. CV-05-3222 R (MCx). This is to inform you of the Court's certification of a Plaintiff Class (the "Class"), the nature of Plaintiffs' claims, and your right to participate in, or exclude yourself from, this Class. At this time, you do not have to do anything to remain a member of the Class (a "Class Member").

What is this case about?

BAR/BRI provides full-service bar review courses throughout the United States, which are aimed at assisting would-be attorneys in their preparation for taking one or more bar examinations required by each state and the District of Columbia prior to the issuance of a license to practice law. Plaintiffs allege that BAR/BRI violated the federal antitrust laws by agreeing with Kaplan, Inc., to prevent competition in the market for full-service bar review courses. Please see the Notice on the links at the right for a full description of Plaintiffs' allegations.

West Publishing Corporation is the owner of BAR/BRI and is a defendant. The other defendant is Kaplan, Inc. (BAR/BRI, and Kaplan, Inc., are hereinafter collectively referred to as "Defendants.") Defendants deny Plaintiffs' allegations and contend that their conduct was legal.

The Court has not yet determined whether Plaintiffs' or Defendants' contentions are correct. A jury trial is scheduled to resolve the issues beginning on February 13, 2007.

Am I Affected By This Litigation?

Class members are those that purchased a full-service bar review course from BAR/BRI anywhere in the United States where BAR/BRI directly operated a course anytime from August, 1997 up to the present time. You are a Class Member if you purchased a full-service bar review course from BAR/BRI to prepare for the winter 1998 bar examination or any subsequent bar examination.

Who Represents Me In This Case?

The Court appointed Ryan Rodriguez, Reena B. Frailich, Loredana Nesci, Jennifer Brazeal, Lisa Gintz, Kari Brewer, and Lorraine Rimson as class representatives for all claims. The Court designated and appointed as Class Counsel the law firm of McGuireWoods, LLP. They are assisted by the firms of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, and Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling, LLP (collectively "Class Attorneys").

How Do I Remain A Class Member?

You Need Not Do Anything At This Time. As a Class Member, you will be bound by all orders and judgments of the Court. Any claims you have against Defendants concerning the allegations summarized in this Notice will be determined by the final resolution of the case. You do not have to pay the Class Attorneys. If they obtain a recovery from the Defendants, they will ask the Court to order reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to be paid by Defendants or from any funds recovered. If you hire your own attorney, you must pay that attorney. You may also seek the Court's permission to intervene or personally appear in the action. We do ask that you notify Class Counsel at the address listed below of any changes to your address.

How Do I Exclude Myself From The Class?

If you want to be excluded from the Class, mail a signed letter asking to be excluded to: BAR/BRI Claims Exclusions, Attn: Glen Davis, McGuireWoods LLC, PO Box 4002, Santa Monica, CA 90411. All exclusion requests must be postmarked by August 13, 2006. If you exclude yourself, you cannot participate in any monetary recovery for the Class, and you will not be bound by any Court orders or judgments. If you wish to remain a member of the Class, DO NOT submit an exclusion form.

What If I Have Questions?

You may read the documents at the links on the right, call 1-888-285-7850, or write to BAR/BRI Class Counsel, Eliot G. Disner, Esq., McGuireWoods LLC, 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067. All Court records may be examined in person and copied at the Clerk's office, United States District Court, Central District of California, 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, California, 90012. PLEASE DO NOT PHONE THE COURT.

Back to Archives

Caveat Emptor - Do Not Enroll in Bar Reviews That Steal or Gouge Students

[Hugh Reed is the Founder and National Director of Reed Law Group, Ltd, d/b/a PassYourBar.com, LawSchoolTutoring.com, Pre-LawReview.com, and MaxYourLSAT.com. Formerly he was the Director of Multistate Testing and Editor in Chief for the largest traditional bar review in the country and wrote and edited Gilbert Law Summaries and Legalines. Professor Reed commanded the U.S. Army's Aviation Brigade and is a former Army Airborne Ranger with combat experience. He teaches law using checklists, mnemonics, and memory devices just like pilots learn their emergency procedures and rangers rehearse combat missions. A foremost expert on exam taking techniques and situational awareness under anxiety-prone conditions, he is licensed to practice in numerous jurisdictions and monitors the most recent nuances and changes on exams. Professor Reed has personally tutored and coached thousands of successful students for over 25 years, many of whom are judges, members of Congress, and successful practicing attorneys. You can email Professor Reed at hughreed@PassYourBar.com.
Archived Article SEPTEMBER 2006......

Both PMBR and BAR/BRI, formerly staples in American bar review preparation, have been caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar. While many other bar review companies provide excellent services with often better results, PMBR and BAR/BRI have been able to build their businesses for years by resorting to illegal or unethical practices. It is time for law students and law school administrators to send both companies a message: We will not do business with anyone who acts illegally or unethically!

On August 26, 2006, a federal court found for plaintiff, the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) and against defendant, PMBR, and entered a judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant, PMBR, Robert Feinberg, and Dona Zimmerman jointly and severally, in the sum of $11,961,787 [plus attorneys' fees] for stealing bar exam questions. National Conference of Bar Examiners vs. Multistate Legal Studies, Inc., d/b/a PMBR, et al., Civil Action No. 04-03282-JF (E.D. Pa.) PMBR's former claim to fame was Multistate Bar Exam (MBE) preparation. Clearly, in the future, you will not see any of PMBR's questions on upcoming MBEs. The basis of the lawsuit was copyright infringement and violations of the California Business and Professions Code. Like a small-time crook, Mr. Feinberg, the Director of PMBR, was caught trying to steal actual Multistate Bar Exam (MBE) questions from a bar exam site in Alaska. Small wonder why proctors insisted on searching me when I took the exam there after Feinberg's attempted theft unbeknownst to me at the time. I should mention no notes were found on my person; I did not take the Alaska bar exam to steal questions but to be licensed in that state in order to represent military clients stationed there. And, among other courses, I teach ethics and value my law licenses.

BAR/BRI, the dominant provider of traditional bar reviews, is again facing liability in a class action lawsuit scheduled for trial in February 2007. Ryan Rodriguez, Reena B. Frailich, et al. vs. West Corporation, dba BAR/BRI, and Kaplan, Inc., Civil Action No. CV 05-3222 R (MCx), (C.D. Ca.). The allegations in that lawsuit are that these two companies conspired and colluded to stay out of each others' business, i.e., BAR/BRI would stay out of the alphabet soup test preparation business (SAT, GMAT, LSAT, MCAT, etc.) if Kaplan agreed to stay out of the bar review business, thereby each company would be able to artificially drive up prices of their respective course offerings. This lawsuit is just the latest of a string of lawsuits that have been filed against BAR/BRI for illegal activities over the last 30 years. It's not surprising to me. One of BAR/BRI's chairman and CEO Richard Conviser's favorite sayings I've heard him repeat over and over while working with him for over a decade is what his father told him while he was growing up: "…that he should be so lucky as to have antitrust or tax problems." BAR/BRI, under Mr. Conviser's direction, has been lucky indeed. Conviser, a law professor, and other principal lecturers for BAR/BRI on MBE subjects, have never actually taken the MBE; most of these lecturers were licensed prior to the MBE being a requirement. Copies of both of these lawsuits can be accessed at www.PassYourBar.com.

So it's been a great run for these two bar review companies, notwithstanding their disregard for the law, duping uninformed law student consumers and law school administrators alike. Like sheep going over a steep cliff, many law students enroll in bar review courses during their first year of law school following the lead of their misinformed friends fueled by glitzy and often misleading advertisement. Some law school administrators host these bar review companies at their law schools; some even pay for these services for their students. And some receive "consulting fees" to assure access to the law schools' assembly and common areas for marketing and to assure potential competitors will be unable to obtain access.

Notwithstanding most law students enrolling in BAR/BRI over the past few years, and many supplementing with PMBR, the bar exam pass rates have just kept on falling over the last ten years. [National Law Journal, "Bar Exam Failures Are On the Rise" March 13, 2006].

Questions to Ask Before Deciding on a Bar Review:

• Does this course offer the highest verifiable pass rate?
• Are the lecturers/tutors well qualified, i.e., have they taken a recent bar exam, including the secure/confidential Multistate Bar Exam (MBE) or are they just law professors who attempt to teach everything they know about the subject they teach in law school instead of how it's tested on the exam?
• Did all lecturers pass their first bar exam?
• Will I be allowed to ask questions during the lectures and phone in or email questions when they arise?
• Will my work product be graded and critiqued continuously by a bar exam expert in order to constantly improve my performance?
• Will my bar review provide me representative questions tested on all parts of my bar examination, including the MBE?
• Is the company licensed to republish actual released questions by the NCBE?
• Can I study over a protracted period of time (or am I expected to learn everything I need to know over a two-month period)?
• Is the course schedule flexible, training interactive, and can I access resources on the internet for 24/7 study?
• Can I study from the comfort of my home or office without wasting time commuting (so long as I have a computer and telephone)?
• Is the course tailored to my strengths/weaknesses and does it offer a psychological test-taking component?
• Is there some sort of guaranteed pass program?

The answers to these questions and a review of bar review companies' litigation record would surprise, no shock, the average law student consumer and/or law school administrator. IF THEY'D ONLY ASK! It would certainly allow them to make a more informed decision before spending thousands of dollars on bar review preparation or hosting bar review companies on their premises who behave like they were in the Wild West and whose value added is minimal.

The good news is that there are companies that provide excellent preparation for the bar exam. For example, Pieper in New York, Flemings in California, and Celebration in Florida all have great reputations and ostensibly do not conduct their respective businesses illegally or unethically. I'd be remiss by not mentioning my company, Reed Law Group, Ltd, dba PassYourBar.com - the only bar review company that I know of where the answers to all of the questions noted above are YES! Indeed, PassYourBar's individualized tutoring has resulted in the highest pass rate of any bar review in the nation; our candidates enjoy a 97% pass rate nationwide for one-on-one tutoring and approximately 92% for small-class tutorials based on verifiable statistics. These statistics are even more remarkable when you consider that most students who come to PassYourBar.com have failed, some many times over, using traditional bar review preparation. (Most of our repeat students took BAR/BRI and PMBR.)

In closing, the law profession is the only profession that is self-policing. We lawyers cannot and should not tolerate those among us who act illegally and unethically. And, students and law administrators alike should be reminded of the old maxim of caveat emptor - ask questions before you enroll in a bar review; preferably get the answers to these questions in writing. Certainly do not enroll in any bar review that acts illegally or unethically.

Back to Archives

For years, PMBR's testimonials boasted that candidates had an inside edge if they took PMBR, mainly because PMBR's practice questions could be found on the actual MBE itself. In fact, the following testimonial can be found at PMBR's Web site (as of this writing Wednesday, September 6th): "I found myself thinking 'That question was covered by PMBR.' I was amazed how on-target you guys were. I scored in the 97th percentile!"

To make a long story short: "I conclude that nearly all of the 113 challenged questions are substantially similar to copyrighted MBE questions," Justice Fullam wrote in his Opinion. "In many instances, evidence of copying practically leaps from the page." Because of the verdict, PMBR employees can no longer sit for bar exams in other states unless they are truly sitting "to obtain bar admission."

When the verdict was announced, the Law Student Journal solicited comments from virtually all industry leaders and bar review participants.

Stan Chess, a former president of Bar/Bri and now a lecturer for PLI MPRE program, among other things, noted, "Most students who have taken PMBR have done so because of the 'striking similarity' between PMBR's questions and the actual questions on the bar exam. After all, who wouldn't pay extra to see the bar exam in advance?

"Now PMBR has lost its raison d'etre, and its enrollments should drop significantly. Who benefits? The biggest beneficiary will be the PLI Multistate Bar Review, run by Chris DeSantis. [Publisher's comment: And AdaptiBar, run by Tarek Fadel.]

"PLI has always run a better program than has PMBR. Now, without PMBR selling the actual questions to its students, more law students and grads will choose to take the PLI supplement instead.

"The PMBR verdict should have a major effect upon Bar/Bri and how it conducts business. It should also have a major effect upon the antitrust lawsuit charging Bar/Bri with illegally dividing the bar review and LSAT markets, and with illegally overcharging law students by hundreds of thousands of dollars."

Michael J. Lowthorp, of www.beatTheBar.com, commented on the verdict as well as PMBR's methodology. "Judge Fullam found that PMBR plagiarized approximately 40% of the questions used in its 2003 - 2005 PMBR exams from the NCBE. A swing of 3-5 questions on the MBE could be the difference between success and failure for many thousands of examinees. When you consider that PMBR tried to advantage their clients with 40 out of 200 questions, it's amazing their (PMBR's) overall pass rate isn't better than what it is.

"When you consider the study method promoted by PMBR, you realize that this was an attempt to prop up their dismal pass rate as verified by the principals' own dismal performances. Answering blocks of 50 questions at a time before making corrections is not a particularly efficient way to study. They (PMBR) are in hopes that a student will answer a question so often that at some point they remember the answer.

"As you know, the MBE has several similar questions with similar fact patterns. Changing up a couple of key words or phrases will give a similar question a completely different answer. In fact, the obviously wrong answer for one question may be the correct answer for another. Unlike our program, the PMBR study method does not enable a student to identify these changes in order to make the proper corrections in their thought process. It is not hard to understand why a familiar question on the MBE would be beneficial to a student who studied under this method. Unfortunately, it is the most common method of study used by the leading prep courses in the industry.

"PMBR and other leading companies claim to have a 98% success rate. Well, maybe after repeated attempts such as Mr. Feinberg had in Alaska (five consecutive failures), one might finally achieve success. Unfortunately, in states like Texas, after five attempts, you're out! Makes you wonder, if this study method is so successful, why is the overall national pass rate so dismal (60-65%)?

"We receive many complaints regarding the deficiencies in PMBR's program. After helping so many repeaters pass the MBE, I can see why PMBR felt compelled to take such extraordinary measures. It is not surprising given today's environment of corporate scandal.

"A twelve million dollar judgment, now that's a lesson they will not soon forget!"

Mary Campbell Gallagher, president of BarWrite® and BarWrite Press, (www.BarWrite.com), and author of Scoring High on Bar Exam Essays, noted that the MBE is an extremely difficult exam. "The BarWrite method for the MBE requires students actually to master many of the rules of law that the MBE tests," she said. "What a concept! Know more law, do better on the MBE."

"The method PMBR preached in its three-day classes," Dr. Gallagher said, "was different. It suggested students should do 50 questions a night, but it did not systematically teach the law. Doing 50 questions a night without systematically learning the law does not raise most people's MBE scores. Nor, as the district court ruled, is the quick and easy method PMBR implied in its advertising--and actually practiced, that is, stealing the questions, either legal or ethical.

"At the same time," Dr. Gallagher said, "I am concerned that as the MBE becomes more difficult it is turning into a test of speed-reading, not law. I think we all need to be concerned about the testing context of the PMBR case.

"I hope," Dr. Gallagher continued, "the PMBR case makes everyone preparing candidates for the bar exam more conscious of two things. First, of the importance of thoroughly teaching basic principles of law, for many reasons, including helping students do well on the MBE. Second--I think professors are often indifferent to copyrights--of the importance of respecting copyrights."

The most politically-correct, though extremely insightful, response came from, Stan Hamrick, President of The Study Group Personal Bar Review: "I think PMBR will continue to be a helpful multi-state supplement for many, even though the advantage has clearly diminished."

Wentworth Miller, of the famed LEEW'S program (Legal Essay Exam Writing System) (www.LEEWS.com), was his usual outspoken self: "My initial reaction is 'Wow!' What a lot of money this outfit has extracted from law students. And for nothing new or particularly helpful, it seems. Second, 'Good!' A scam and unfair crutch has been exposed and punished.

"Re: my initial reaction, the same can be said about law schools. It costs far less than what law schools charge to run a law school (which is why more and more law schools are being started, despite a surplus of lawyers). Moreover, if law schools did anything that approached training lawyerly competence, we might not need bar exams and programs like PMBR.

"I must note that LEEWS and PMBR move in different circles. They're about (were about?) prep for the multistate segment of the bar exam. LEEWS is about correcting a major oversight on the part of law schools (all of them!) -- instructing how, exactly, to perform 'lawyerlike analysis,' and how to prepare for and write 'A' exams (the only thing that matters in law school!).

"I also want to make clear that we make far, far less money (because we are reasonable). Moreover, not only are all our materials our own, but we, unlike all others so far as I can tell after 26 years in the business, actually offer instruction and insights that go far beyond the standard IRAC and helpful hints that have been around for decades.

"Rightfully and deservedly RIP PMBR."

Whether PMBR's funeral should be planned, remains to be seen. While PMBR's marketing theme will undoubtedly have to change, PMBR will likely not disappear from the law school landscape. The one thing PMBR and the other mass-produced course have on their side, is the distinct herd mentality of law students and bar candidates, who, collectively, are one of the most unsophisticated, lemming-like consumer groups in the entire world. Chances are it will be business as usual for PMBR, even though there are other ways to prepare for the MBE with courses like AdaptiBar (www.adaptibar.com) and BarWrite (www.BarWrite.com), among others.

Reported by Steve Liosi, Esq. In addition to publishing this journal, Steve Liosi is the Program Director of www.barperfect.com. You can reach Steve by calling (562) 536-9476 or by e-mailing steve@clsj1994.com.
The quoted comments in the e-article you just read do not necessarily parallel the thoughts and observations of the Law Student Journal or any of the other advertisers herein.
An abbreviated version of this article appeared in our "special edition" September on-campus issue.

Back to Archives