$125 free money!!! Attorney fired??? Zounds!!! A BAR/BRI Class Action update.

I took the Bar/Bri Bar Review course, as do far too many attorneys-to-be. Simply put, it costs far too much for what amounts to mere force-fed rote memorization of masses of answers to multiple choice questions.

As you likely know, there’s a settlement out there negotiated between the firm representing the class, McGuireWoods, and BAR/BRI. The settlement (not yet finalized) requires West Publishing to pay $36 million, and Kaplan to pay $13 million. That amounts to an average of $125.00 for each of the approximately 300,000 law students that took a BAR/BRI course between 1997 and 2006.

If you haven’t submitted a claim and want to get in on the action, you must postmark your claim no later than September 17th, 2007. The class action page and claim form links are here.

McGuireWoods partner Eliot Disner, however, along with three of the seven lead plaintiffs, have objected to this settlement, claiming it far undervalues the class’ actual damages, which Mr. Disner estimates at more than $400 million. Although Mr. Disner drafted the brief, he did not file it–it was filed by the three objecting plaintiffs, Loredana Nesci, Lisa Gintz, and Ryan Rodriguez. Turns out that Mr. Disner et al don’t think the $125 is so free after all. At ten times the damages, this theoretically would mean we’d each be entitled to, approximately, $1,000. Much more attractive figure, that.

May 24th, the Wall Street Journal reported, and Mr. Disner confirmed, that he has been fired by McGuireWoods for objecting to the settlement. Law.com reports that McGuireWoods partner William Alcott responded to the Disner-drafted brief: “Eliot’s brief does not represent the position of McGuireWoods as lead class counsel,” and that “[McGuireWoods] will be addressing the substance” of the brief in a later filing.

For those of you that agree with Disner, et al, and think the objectors have any chance of success, you may get word in advance of your September 17 deadline. While the $49 million settlement has been preliminarily approved by the judge, another hearing is scheduled for June 18th to finalize the settlement.

And a little postscript. Who is this colorful Loredana Nesci character that’s popping up in the media in pictures with Disner? Why is she suddenly the objectors’ poster-girl? From the odd MySpace page, to her bodybuilding stats, to her extra-schmaltzy law firm website (check out the bio, which details her participation in police shootouts (as a policewoman) and her providing nutrition counseling to insecure fellow law students), she almost seems like an attractive female Mike Hammer (yes, right down to the schmaltz). At best, this seems like an unorthodox choice of a poster-girl. Her wit and wisdom about the settlement is that it “pretty much sucks.” Needless to say, I agree: I’ll take the $1,000 over the $125 anyday.

Loredana: I sincerely hope you and Disner can squeeze a little more out of those publication and Bar Review powerhouses for us starving attorneys. Disner: hope you get your job back. If all else fails, Loredana’s web site says that her passion as an attorney is defending the blameless. (And we all know you’re doing this solely because it’s a righteous cause… you’re doing it for us.)

Lime out



Filed under Appellate Law, Humor, Law, Supreme Court

17 responses to “$125 free money!!! Attorney fired??? Zounds!!! A BAR/BRI Class Action update.

  1. Dear Mr. Lime-

    Loved your blog….laughed my ass off reading your take on me….if you had worked a few lifetimes on this case, you too could have been the poster-child for the objectors….will do everything I can to do right by my sisters and brothers in the law.

    Yours very truly,

    Loredana Nesci

    p.s., feel free to leave me a comment on my myspace page anytime.

    ; )

  2. Dianne Bonfiglio, Esquire

    Great Commentary. Love the bit on Loredana Nesci. She’s a powerhouse! 🙂 Oh yeah, and I hope we get the $1,000, too! Where do I sign?

  3. Well, I am taken aback just a tad by Loredana’s site being referred to as “schmaltzy”. I think it’s attractive, informative, and well done. And that’s not just because I designed it!

  4. Being confrontational is apparently the name of the game in drumming up website visits, but allow me to depart from that briefly…

    You must admit that a self-described (or even willingly submitted to another’s description as a) diva is a stone’s throw from schmaltz… so too is the early onset life purpose, the cross-country roadtrip en route to finding the Force, yadda yadda, &c. It’s a very quirky story that pulls on heartstrings–law firm websites don’t typically do that. Schmaltz ain’t bad. The Princess Bride is full of it. Take “schmaltzy” here in the best possible sense of the word — certainly not “insincere.”

    After checking out your website, Mary, I’m sure you’ll agree Ms. Nesci’s site has a distinctly different flavor than O’Melveny and Myers’ website, for example. You’ve done a great job (if a little small appearing in my browser window). It’s different from the norm, though–not the industrial, run-of-the-mill, dinosaur law firm website. Could be more informative re the practice section–but I gather it’s a new site (?), so Loredana likely will be supplying more info as the practice grows. So no schmaltz worries per se in your design, either.

    Applying the “totality of the circumstances” test, I’m not complaining. I’ve got comments from the lovely and multi-faceted Ms. Nesci on my site, from an attorney/Halo 2 player extraordinaire, and from a web designer whiz, all law connected. With muses like this, I can get back to posting on legal matters ’till the cows come home. Feel free to offer your own legal commentary or topic suggestions, all will be much appreciated. I’m just a starving appellate attorney trying to make my way in the world.

    Harry Lime


    Hey bro-

    I checked her out and all the websites you listed…you’re right bro, Loredana’s hot. I’m gonna stalk her websites once a day!

    Thanks for the hook up bro!

  6. “Stalk”? I guess technically it just means to visit repeatedly… no problem technically, but the connotation is a little disturbing. Just so long as you’re stalking only the websites.

    Otherwise, turn yourself in to the authorities.

    She ain’t hard to look at, and she’s a lawyer. Not a bad combo.


  7. Ryan

    Well done…Well done… I particularly like the second to last paragraph
    about you and your multi-profiles/sites. It’s like, “Who… who is this lady!?” Also, in a sense
    this article kind of connotes that you’re this secret weapon or something.

    I can actually say that I’ve had the pleasure of meeting you at Powerhouse gym in CT.

  8. You’ve met ME at the Powerhouse Gym?
    I’m a secret weapon?


  9. Tony Cassala

    If the objectors want to adjust the perspective of BAR/BRI, Loredana is the legal chiropractor to do the job.

    Mary Vogt, I may hire you to build my website – Stay tuned for a request to quote!

    Mr. Lime, in thinking of yourself as “a starving appellate attorney….”, the universe responds accordingly.

    – Tony C.


  10. Joseph Calabrese

    Dear Harry,

    About Loredana…Unorthodox maybe…but one hell of an attorney. She is like Mike Tyson (in the ring) in his prime and fights to the end. And kind of cute too!! I hope justice is served here. And if it comes, she will cut the road out for it.


  11. Andrea hayden

    ok who ever is talking all that junk… well your wrong.. ive known Lo for a long time and she is a wonderful women and does a hell of a job with her career. so if anyone has anything bad to say…come to meriden,ct and ill show you the real deal….. LO is the SHIT!!!!!!!


  12. Enough, enough. Although I respect your privacy enough to not make your email address public, all A.O. readers are hereby informed that “Tony Cassala” and “Joseph Calabrese” both originate with the same email address, and all three of the most recent comments decrying my own tongue-in-cheek commentary–including Andrea Hayden–originate at the same IP. We know you’re all buddies, but don’t lay it on so thickly.

    I stand by my comments, and can’t imagine anybody’s skin–not to mention a dogged prizefighter’s skin–would be so thin that my opinions would worry them in the least.

    And as for the universe responding: nice turn of phrase, but c’mon–the universe doesn’t trifle with false humility from Harry Lime. Everybody who knows Mr. Lime knows that.

    Lime out

  13. Andrea Hayden

    who ever you are LIME!!! listen to me…. who cares if a few comments were written at close times… its called the majority of us live on eastern time, and well its common for a person on the east coast to go on the internet at 10:30 at night. Also why are you pointing out the obvious… i STATED in my comment that i know Loredana… i don’t know who the other people are.. but i am finishing up with my criminal law, and i work so i get home very late at night… so i don’t know what your problem is for leaving that comment about me. Dude Loredana is very well known here, where i am from. She is a wonderful women. Great personality and she knows her shit. She is a close family friend to me and my attorney. I think what you had wrote about her is total bullshit, if you had known her personally you would never say that. i honestly, whole heartly don’t give two shits what you say… i don’t care about your opinion, but when someone is wrong I HAVE THE BALLS to tell them so!!!! so enough out of your mouth… oh and by the way why would you THREATEN HER ABOUT MAKING HER EMAIL ADDRESS PUBLIC…. Watch what you say buddy, to anyone on this page, you can get SUED!!!!! MR. LIME you don’t know anything, so take yourself, and some of those fancsy words you use and get off this page.. and i was being serious… you got a problem… come to CT!!!

  14. Ms. Hayden: I’d only suggest that the next time you have a complaint about something written, that you actually read it. Moreover, please note that most readers understand the implications when I reveal the mere fact that you used the exact same IP address and/or email address to add “fluff” comments in close succession. I’ll hereby mark them above so that others can see the added “fluff” to support Loredana, who for all I can tell, is likely worthy of more mature support than what you’re managing. Thanks for your comments.

    Because I have no desire to subject anyone here to your patently false glosses on my own commentary, you are hereby banned. I have never threatened to make Ms. Nesci’s email address public, which in any case would be a hollow threat, given her email address is readily available on her website. So long, and best of luck to you.

    Lime out

  15. yojoe

    Ms. Hayden,

    What does it mean to say you are “finishing up with my criminal law”? Are you a law student? If so, you may want to curtail you use of the ellipsis. What was the omitted material? I love …… Loredana ….. she is me friend …. . . . . . you . . . . no . . . . … .. . . . . . nothing Lime. Me will … resort … to . … . . . profanity. … . . . .


  16. Pingback: Barred from (and by) the Bar Exam « hold on to the feeling

  17. Incredible A little bit in a hurry, did not get to read everything but will definitely come back later to finish everything. I really like the point you are making with your last paragraph.. We do hope you guys have

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s