The April 29 lawsuit against the country's biggest bar exam and LSAT preparation companies, filed as a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleges that BAR/BRI and test-preparation company Kaplan, Inc., agreed to illegally dividing the LSAT and bar exam test-preparation market.
The suit claims that under the alleged agreement, BAR/BRI withdrew from the LSAT preparation business and Kaplan agreed not to enter the bar-review course market. The complaint charges that "without substantial competition, BAR/BRI's net prices per student then increased substantially in most states." It claims that from 1997 to the present, Kaplan and BAR/BRI "have concealed their conspiracy to divide the market." The lawsuit claims BAR/BRI students were overcharged about $300 million since August 1997 and said customers may deserve $1,000 each in refunds.
"Some students try to cut corners by studying on their own, but this puts them at a material disadvantage in learning bar law," said Goldman. "If BAR/BRI's prices are inflated because of the lack of competition due to illegal behavior, then some legitimate competition in the market is much needed and will make a difference between some students' realizing their dreams and failing to overcome the bar exam."
Rod Borlase is an attorney-mediator and said law students have been easy targets for exploitation because they often buy into the intense competitive nature of law school and of bar- and other prep courses.
"Practice aids throughout law school, particularly first year, then bar review courses after graduation—it's just one blood-sucking vulture after another," said Borlase. "On the other hand, I wouldn't want to take a bar exam without a review course, although I know some who have successfully."
But Oskin believes that law students will continue to pay because they cannot afford to fail or fall behind their peers.
"When compared to their loans and the money to be made in a legal profession, BAR/BRI seems to be a reasonable expenditure, though that doesn't mean that students are not being taken advantage of," said Oskin.
How the allegations in the suit will pan out remains to be seen.
"If the plaintiff's allegations are true, then it's about time that the wrongs are corrected," said Goldman. "However, we just don't know yet if the allegations are true; so we have to wait and see."
The named plaintiffs, Ryan Rodriguez and Reena B. Frailich, are suing on behalf of law students and attorneys to recover damages plus costs. Representing the plaintiffs is the law firm of Van Etten Suzumoto & Becket, LLP, of Santa Monica, CA. The lead attorney is antitrust trial lawyer Eliot G. Disner.
In a prepared statement, Disner said the goal of the suit is to restore competition in the market and break up BAR/BRI "so that future law school grads will have a choice and will pay reasonable prices, rather than prices that are illegally inflated."
Disner added, "It's tough enough to become a lawyer these days. The cost of the bar-review course should not make it any tougher."-->
