法學院畢業生當不上律師 學校該負責嗎

Nearly a decade has passed since an aspiring young lawyer in California, Anna Alaburda, graduated in the top tier of her class, passed the state bar exam and set out to use the law degree she had spent about $150,000 to acquire.

近十年前，加利福尼亞州懷有一腔抱負的年輕律師安娜·阿拉布爾達(Anna Alaburda)以在班上名列前茅的成績畢業，並通過了州律師資格考試，開始要利用自己花了大約15萬美元換來的法律學位。

But on Monday, in a San Diego courtroom, she will tell a story that has become all too familiar among law students in the United States: Since graduating from the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in 2008, she has yet to find a full-time, salaried job as a lawyer.

但週一，在聖地亞哥的一家法院，她將講述一個對美國的法律專業學生來說再熟悉不過的故事：自2008年從托馬斯·傑斐遜法學院(Thomas Jefferson School of Law)畢業以來，她尚未找到一份帶薪的全職律師工作。

From there, though, her story has taken an unusual twist: Alaburda, 37, is the first former law student whose case against a law school, charging that it inflated the employment data for its graduates as a way to lure students to enroll, will go to trial.

但從這裏開始，她的故事發生了一個不同尋常的轉折：37歲的阿拉布爾控告法律學校誇大畢業生就業數據，以此誘騙學生入學。這也成爲了首起即將開審的此類案件。

Other disgruntled students have tried to do the same. In the last several years, 15 lawsuits have sought to hold various law schools accountable for publicly listing information critics say was used to pump up alumni job numbers by counting part-time waitress and other similar, full-time jobs as employment. Only one suit besides Alaburda's remains active.

其他一些心懷不滿的學生也試過這麼做。過去幾年裏，共有15起訴訟案件試圖追究各種各樣的法律學校公開發布不實就業信息的責任。批評人士稱，這些學校通過把兼職服務員及其他類似的全職工作算作就業的方式，擡高畢業生就業數據。除阿拉布爾達這起案件外，只有一樁訴訟案仍在處理過程中。

None of the other cases reached trial because judges in Illinois, Michigan and New York, where several cases were filed, generally concluded that law students had opted for legal education at their own peril, and were sophisticated enough to have known that employment as a lawyer was not guaranteed.

其他案件無一走到審理環節，因爲在出現了多起類似訴訟案件的伊利諾伊州、密西根州和紐約州，法官普遍認爲，法律專業的學生是自己冒險選擇接受法律教育的，且他們足夠成熟，知道不一定能以律師的身份就業。

But a California judge let Alaburda's suit proceed, brushing aside efforts by the law school to derail her claims.

但加利福尼亞州的一名法官不顧托馬斯·傑斐遜法學院試圖讓阿拉布爾達的訴訟半途而廢而採取的行動，允許案件繼續往前推進。

“It has taken five years,” said her lawyer, Brian A. Procel of Los Angeles. “But this will be the first time a law school will be on trial to defend its public employment figures.”

“用了五年時間，”阿拉布爾達的代理律師布萊恩·A·普羅塞爾(Brian A. Procel)說。“但這一次，法律學校將首次走上法庭，爲自己對外公開的就業數據辯護。”

Alaburda's day in court will take on added meaning: These will be her first public words after years of silence while she pursued a remedy for a legal education gone wrong.

阿拉布爾達走上法庭還有另外一層意義：在經歷了多年一言不發地尋求法律教育的補救措施卻無果後，這將是她首次公開發聲。