While the case was likely decided correctly, in my view this person does not deserve to be called out on the wall of "shame and comedy."
I am a practicing lawyer who is financially successful, but I have seen first-hand how a lot of people who graduated in the past five years struggle. It would be easy to dismiss those struggles by saying they should have done their due diligence and seen that there was a lawyer glut, but I have yet to meet anyone who is not a lawyer advise someone not to go to law school. Parents will encourage their kids to go to law school. Aunts and uncles will encourage their kids to go to law school. The reality is that there are not a lot of people who will tell a 22-year old that this might be an imprudent idea.
The case highlights that for many people, law school is something they do if they do not know what else to do with their lives, and they do not have the skills to become an entrepreneur. Law school cannot promise "employment" any more than medical school can promise "employment". It entitles you to hang your shingle and practice, which requires a lot of hustle. And law school teaches none of the practical business skills required to do this. It is clear that this person did not think that she might be able to make a living taking legal aid certificates, closing house deals, or taking anything that comes through the door. And lawyers are some of the most risk-averse people - law school does not tend to attract the budding entrepreneurs. And graduating from law school only to be the overeducated equivalent of a motor rickshaw driver hustling for clients among crazy competition is always a shock to the system.
To me, the bigger question is how we train someone who has no life experience to critically evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of entering the profession. Most 22-year olds have no idea what the working world is like. They also have no idea what legal practice is like. And law schools are being used as the golden geese of universities - attracting obscene tuition for minimal overhead and subsidizing other programs. They certainly have no incentive to tell the truth.
To redeem this thread, could we consider the discussion of how we can get prospective law school entrants to conduct an appropriate cost-benefit analysis before they f*** themselves over?