What is the average cost of attending law school? What if an 18 year old wanted to go to law school as cheaply as possible? How mutch could he manage it for? What about an ivy league school? What about the university of Texas? He is a dependent of a veteran, but the G.I. bill benefits have already been used up. He is not willing to get a student loan no matter what the benefits may be.
This answer is limited to options in the United States. According to the U.S. News and World Report annual survey of over 197 law programs, the average cost of attending a private law school is $43,020 and attending a public law school costs an average of $26,264 for in-state residents and $39,612 for out-of-state students. At the top 10 law schools in the country, the average cost of attendance is $60,293 per year. (Source as of 2018). Law school typically takes three years, so triple that number. So, you are looking at $78,792 to $180,879. As discussed below, however, there are economically rational reasons for prospective law students who are chasing a career in a big law firm or in academia to attend a more expensive top law school if they can manage to be admitted there. Some law students are able to work at a moderately paying part-time job during the school year, but summer clerkships for law students, especially between the second and third years of law school, tend to be quite well paying as summer jobs for college students go. A pay of $10,000-$20,000 for the summer as a whole (as well as a leg up on a permanent job after law school) for a post-second year of law school clerkship, would not be unusual. But this is offset by the need to use most of the savings from this job to pay for an optional, but highly recommended, bar exam preparation course that typically lasts several weeks and costs on the order of $5,000-$10,000 (not included in the total cost calculated here). LSAT preparation classes, in contrast, have only marginal value, especially for someone who has already taken SAT or ACT preparation classes. These classes are not necessary if you simply buy some test preparation books and do a few practice tests yourself. Unaccredited law schools (which exist only in California) are a waste of money. The attrition rates are very high, and bar passage rates are very low at the bottom ten or twenty law schools, as measured by incoming student LSAT and undergraduate GPA performance, and are also a bad idea unless you have no other choice. Also, keep in mind that before going to law school, you have to earn an undergraduate bachelor's degree (although your major really doesn't matter at all). How Much Does a Bachelor's Degree Cost? The average annual tuition and fees for a four-year bachelor's degree in the United States is $8,893 for in-state attendees of public colleges, $22,203 for out-of-state attendees of public colleges, and $30,094 for private nonprofit colleges. These 2013-2014 figures, from reports released by the College Board, represent a 2.9 to 3.8 percent increase from the previous year. The 2.9 percent increase for in-state students at public institutions is one of the smallest increases in 30 years. The published figures don't include room and board, books, transportation and other expenses. That adds an average of $13,933 per year at a public college and $14,656 at a private institution, according to the College Board. Added all together, that brings the four-year total cost to $91,304 to $179,000, depending on where you attend. (Source) So, for undergraduate and law school educations combined you are looking at $170,000 to $360,000 of costs of attendance (disregarding any part-time employment or summer job income and any opportunity costs), over seven years, if you attend full-time. Of course, this goes up almost every year. Higher education costs have consistently risen at more than the general rate of inflation in the economy for many decades. Anyone with the academic ability necessary to graduate with an undergraduate college degree with good enough grades and LSAT scores to get into law school, however, is almost sure to be able to secure significant financial aid at the undergraduate level which is, in part at least, not a student loan. The net price of attendance at an undergraduate college has little to do with the &quot;sticker price&quot; of that experience. My children have paid only a small fraction of the &quot;stricker price&quot; to attend a highly selective liberal arts college and an Ivy League university, respectively, as undergraduates, and would have had to pay more per year to attend a local, non-flagship state university (because highly selective institutions have big endowments to pay for generous financial aid packages). In contrast, almost all financial aid for law school comes in the form of federally guaranteed and subsidized rate student loans that will have to be paid off during one's legal career. I had family pay for all of my family contribution for my undergraduate education and half of my law school costs of attendance (at a top ten school), and it still took me twenty years to pay off my students loans. He is not willing to get a student loan no matter what the benefits may be. The only possible ways to become a lawyer debt-free are to have a wealthy family, or perhaps, to enroll in the U.S. military's judge advocate-general (JAG) program (I'm not familiar with the details of how that works). Also, most student loan programs for law school have income based repayment plans and public service employment loan forgiveness plan, so the student loan burden is significantly lower if you pursue a public interest lower paying career (but still quite burdensome early in life, nonetheless). Footnote: Only Risk It If You Are LikeLy To Pass The Bar Exam From sources beyond the scope of this question, I'd just like to note that the empirical evidence suggests that one needs roughly a 2.8 undergraduate GPA out of 4, and 149 out of 180 LSAT score (a score which is at roughly the 40th percentile for LSAT test takers and an IQ of about 118) to have a realistic chance of passing the bar exam (extrapolating from admissions statistics and bar passage rates of the lower ranked accredited law schools). If you aren't at that level academically, law school will eat your tuition without providing you a degree or profession of any significant value. If you can't meet this academic threshold but are committed to working in the legal field, consider getting a paralegal certificate instead, which is vastly less expensive and takes much less time to secure, while still preparing you for a reasonably well paying law related career. To have a very high chance of passing the bar exam on the first try (95%+) you need to have an LSAT score of about 155 out of 180 and an undergraduate GPA of about 3.35 out of 4, in addition to studying hard without too many distractions in law school. (See e.g., here and here). A typical lawyer who has just passed the bar exam had an LSAT score of about 165 out of 180, and an undergraduate GPA of about 3.5 out of 4. Footnote: Are The Rewards Worth The Cost? This said, if you pass the bar exam, the income benefits of being a lawyer (no matter where you went to law school, or how well you performed academically in college, in law school, and on the bar exam) will generally exceed the costs of getting that education and the opportunity costs involved, although your mileage may vary. This has been shown with quite rigorous studies, for example, comparing people who got into law school and passed the bar to people who just barely failed to be admitted or were admitted but couldn't attend for financial reasons (alas, my links to the relevant studies have rotted and I can't quickly reconstruct them). This is not true, however, if you are a woman who takes a substantial amount of time out of the workforce to have children and raise them when they are little (in which case the economics of a law school education become much, much worse, aside from the fact that women who are lawyers tend to marry very affluent husbands on average). My alma mater has done surveys of alums to get hard data on this point and the reality is much more extreme than I would have expected before seeing the data (I've only seen this data in hard copy). Post-law school earnings are bimodal. Something on the order of 30-40% of new law school graduates secure very high paying positions as associates in very large law firms, where most will work for two to seven years before leaving in a lateral move to a small or medium sized firm, or opening their own practice. Lawyers on this track receive exceedingly good returns on their law school educations. Most new lawyers on the big law associate track (and it is very rare to enter this track other than as a new law graduate who summer clerked for a larger law firm while in law school), are either at the high end of a top law school, are at the very top of the class of another law school located in the same state as a major office of that firm, or have family connections to the firm (or perhaps celebrity or elected official status). So, economically, the main benefit to attending a top law school, at a cost of up to $100,000 more than a less prestigious law school, is to increase one's likelihood of finding a career in a big law firm immediately upon graduating from law school (with a 50% to 100% higher income in the early years of your career, and higher lifetime earnings by a smaller percentage). (Graduating from a top law school is also basically a necessity if you want to secure a tenure track position as a law school professor and can provide other intangible benefits as well.) The minority (typically 10% to 30%) of big law associates at a given big law firm (about 7% of all new lawyers), will make partner join the pinnacle of the upper middle class in the United States and have economic returns comparable to being top executives in publicly held companies, very large privately held companies, successful IT startup companies, or hedge fund managers and investment bankers. The law school graduates who do not start out on this track are much less economically well rewarded at first, although still well enough to justify the cost of a law school education in the lion's share of cases (subject to the caveat for women taking substantial time out of the workforce to have children which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars or more in lifetime earnings). After a decade or two in practice, however, this divide tends to even up, with the big law track lawyers mostly sinking down in relative incomes, and the other lawyers gradually rising up in relative incomes, although some divide typically persists through the two group's careers. Furthermore, there are lots of things about being a lawyer that are not fun. It is not a good career choice for many people, and making good money while being miserable is sadly a common circumstance in the profession. Being a lawyer is very different from the way it is portrayed on TV and a prospective lawyer would be well served by getting first hand experience or talking to practicing lawyers about what the job is really like once you are in it.
There are several elements working in your friend's favor. The first is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." In an entrapment case, the police have recordings or documents claiming that the "girl" was underaged. If there is no such smoking gun from the (real) girl, the case (probably) would not be prosecuted in the U.S. He doesn't have to prove that she told him she was 18; "she" (or the police) has to prove that she told him she was "not." The second factor is "remoteness" in time, and distance. Two years after a U.S. state sent me a "nasty letter," I asked my lawyer if the state would ever come after me. He answered, "If they were going to do this, you would have heard further by now." The other factor, distance and cross border, (three countries: Turkey, the U.S., his home country) further militates against prosecution except for highly aggravating circumstances such as drug dealing, gambling, or sex for pay. A third factor is that your friend would not come close to qualifying as a "serious offender." This would be someone like a drug dealer, or the head of a "call girl" ring. The cops concentrate their effects on big "busts" like this that make their careers, not "small fry" like your friend. But of course they use the publicity from the big catches to scare everyone else. While there is no "guarantee" against "the worst possible consequences," the chances of them happening are similar to his getting hit by lightening, and less than his chances of being hit by a car crossing the street. No one stresses out about those chances. He shouldn't either. I am not a lawyer but I have done paralegal work in a law office.
What stops a university form doing anything it wants is the contract you entered with the university when you enrolled. (I'm writing from the perspective of a student, not faculty). You and they are bound by the contract, and part of that contract will be a clear outline of academic processes such as ethics, grading, class requirements and test taking, as well as penalties for cheating and plagiarism. That contract will be outlined in your student handbook. That handbook and contract will also clearly outline (or should) the grievance process and remediation for both students and faculty. Since you feel that the university is not being fair, you need to start with investigating that formal grievance process and look into gathering your materials and filing a complaint. The college will have an office that handles such grievances; you need to find it and talk to them. If they are a private college, yes, they do have their "own rules," but some aspects of federal, provincial and local civil and criminal law will still apply. Be aware that the school contract may bind you to arbitration - which means you have to deal with the college on all matters - and you may not be able to go to a public court on a civil matter. A lawyer will be able to tell if you are bound by arbitration and if so, that's the end of the road. If not, a lawyer will tell you if you have a criminal or civil case. In any event, the grievance process at the U will more than likely be your first step. If by chance criminal misconduct is found during the grievance process, then a federal, provincial or local prosecutor would be involved; we would assume the university would be forthcoming if that need appeared.
Is my best bet to get a lawyer and sue? If so, approximately how much should I expect it to cost? How would it work with the requirement for him to pay the legal fees? You would ordinarily either hire a lawyer or bring suit yourself in a limited jurisdiction court (the kind that handles misdemeanor criminal offenses and smaller dollar amounts owed, the exact name of the court differs from state to state). You can always bring suit in the county where the debtor resides. If the loan was not for consumer purposes, you could sue in the place where the loan &quot;was made&quot; or in a forum provided by the loan documents (which does not appear to be present), that might be different from the place where the debtor resides. Usually, you would want to hire a lawyer with offices not too far from the place where you are bringing suit, as limited jurisdiction courts often require in person appearances. Normally, a lawyer would ask to be paid up front, with you posting a retainer equal to a significant share of the estimated legal fees, called a retainer against which the lawyer would bill until it was exhausted, and would normally bill on an hourly basis. Fees on the order of $1,500-$5,000 wouldn't be unusual. One factor that would increase the cost would be the fact that your loan is almost certainly at an illegally high rate of interest, and you and your lawyer would have to examine the relevant law to determine the effect of that on the enforceability of your loan, and the correct amount to claim. In some jurisdictions and circumstances, this might make your entitle loan or at least all interest on it and all fees incurred to collect the debt, uncollectible. In other jurisdictions it might just reduce the amount of interest you could recover. Without this complication, it might have been a matter you could handle on your own. With this complication, you really need a lawyer. You could probably not legitimately claim the full $18,000 plus attorney fees and costs. Some lawyers would take a case like this on a contingent fee basis with you only advancing court costs and out of pocket expenses like process serving charged, but they'd typically do so only if they were confident that they would prevail at trial and if they were also confident that the debtor had the ability to pay. On a one-off basis, a contingent fee percentage of 40%-50% would be more common in this situation that the &quot;usual&quot; one-third contingency rate. &quot;Reasonable&quot; legal fees would be added to the amount you are owed on the loan if the high rate of interest doesn't invalidate this provision. Amounts recovered for legal fees would be paid to you from which you could repay your lawyer whatever you owed your lawyer. In a contingent fee case, usually hourly based fees are awarded and included in the total amount recovered (once the debtor actually pays) and the lawyer would get a percentage of the total collected regardless of what the amount recovered is supposed to be for. Another option would be to sell your debt to a debt collection firm which would charge you a small sign up fee and then collect a percentage of the debt recovered. The usurious interest rate involved, however, might discourage them from accepting you as a customer or buying the debt. If the debtor is not collectible with a job and/or real estate with substantial equity, you probably won't be able to find someone to take the case on a contingent fee basis at all, and will probably have to pay an hourly rate. Do I have the option to take this up via civil complaints? Or is that only for people who are in the same state? It isn't clear what you mean in these questions. A lawsuit is commenced by filing a civil complaint, filed by you or your lawyer in a court, and this can be done even if you don't live in the same state as the debtor, although it may be necessary to file it in the state where the debtor lives. But, the government won't supply a lawyer to help you collect your debt in the way that it would appoint a prosecutor to bring criminal charges against someone who committed a crime in which you were a victim.
It is the tenant's responsibility to understand the written contract. Oral statements about the contract do have to be consistent with the written contract (that is, in the context where you ask the landlord what a particular clause means before signing -- not in the case where you are modifying an existing contract). If I were renting a room and the contract says "Du må betale $1000 hver dag", which I don't understand because my Norwegian is terrible, I would ask about this, and the landlord might say that it means "You must pay $1000 every month", which could be a decent deal. Actually, the clause says "You must pay $1000 every day". When the reality of the situation becomes clear, then it is obvious that we didn't have an agreement in the first place. Perhaps he mis-spoke, or his English is as bad as my Norwegian, but I would not be held to rate in the written contract, assuming that I could back up my claim that he gave me that interpretation: the lease would probably be voided, as not an actual agreement. The underlying principle is that there has to be a "meeting of the minds" where the parties understand what they will get and what they must give, and there was a demonstrable failure of understanding. On the other hand, if I sign a contract without really reading it carefully, and there is a clause in English (which I speak) saying that I have to pay $1000 a day, but I didn't really think about the clause so that in a sense I didn't understand what I had agreed to, well, I may still be on the hook. (On the third hand, a court would probably say that's a ridiculous rent and void the contract on policy grounds). In general, "not my first language" is not a get-out-of-contract card, though attempts to trick people into signing documents in languages that they really have no understanding of won't be successful. Virtually nobody but a lawyer actually understands contractual language, yet contracts are enforced all the time. A contract can be explicitly modified by verbal agreement, or can be entirely verbal, but oral agreements face evidence problems, namely, what exactly did A and B say? It's scientifically well established that parties can be morally certain that the conversation went "A" (for one person) and "Not A" (for the other person). Using "could" rather than "would" in speech makes a huge difference in interpretation. There is a rule, the parol evidence rule, which essentially says that unless there is a good reason to not do so, the contract as written is what is enforced. Even if the conversation had been written into the contract, there's no basis in the contract for objectively determining whether a thing is old and "just broke". So even as an additional clause in the contract, it doesn't afford you a clear escape hatch. You might be able to prove with expert testimony that indeed the pipes had been corroding for a hundred years, and you could not have caused the pipes to burst.
Even though student status is not on the list of protected classes, this still might be discrimination. By proxy. Status as student can be a proxy for age, race, and/or color. Maybe even religion if there is a religious school nearby! In fairness to the store manager, when a pack of ten kids comes rolling in on the way home from school things can get pretty hectic. Rather than try to kick out the problem kids many managers will attempt to avoid the problem in the first place. Also, a sign like this might help the manager be less discriminatory. For example, let's say he lets all kids in and only kicks out the ones who are causing problems. If those problem kids are all in one protected class and it's different from the kids who don't get kicked out, the manager looks like he's discriminating based on that protected class. Discrimination by proxy can be hard to prove and I am not sure of the burden of proof in Canada. I have read that "Canadian experience" is used as a proxy in employment discrimination and has been getting some attention lately. That might be a good issue to keep an eye on as it may define proxy discrimination jurisprudence.
This would be virtually impossible to do from scratch. If you had the guidance of someone who successfully pursued a similar legal action it might be possible. In theory you should be able to pursue grievances in court by becoming well versed in the applicable laws and rules, having impeccable attention to detail, exceptional deductive and writing skills, and getting lucky enough to run your filings through patient clerks who will tell you every time you're missing something or doing something wrong. New York Courts even offer this encouraging CourtHelp website for pro se guidance on common actions. But if you really want to attempt a pro se civil action, especially against a government entity, or other entity with essentially unlimited legal funds, you not only need all of the above but also some sort of assistance from somebody who knows the system. I would spend as much time looking for sympathetic advocacy groups and lawyers offering pro bono service as I would reading relevant law and procedure. (One more thing: The word "quick" is never used in conjunction with formal legal actions, except in jest ;)
These types of situations can, do and will get very messy and bitter fast. The key question here is actually two basic areas: What’s the legal situation now in terms of what you can actually claim etc? For this you need a lawyer familiar with the local laws. Second, and much more important, is how much you value your relationship with your sister. These types of situations can and do irreparably break families, and you need to think very hard about this element of the situation regardless of what your legal rights are. Personally I would err towards probing gently into what she thinks is fair/your mother intended etc and go from there, with the emphasis on extreme caution. Money can always be replaced. Families can’t.