I've criticized Nick's lawyer-ness from the moment I paid attention to this thread/him, and it's not been because of where he went to law school, or that he went part-time. I've said before I have interacted with some very smart and good attorneys out of William Mitchell (and Hamline, with which WM has been merged). One of the fastest-rising law firm partners I ever knew went to Fordham at night (Fordham is strong now, but at the time going nights at Fordham was not considered a "top tier" path; well, my guy made partner at one of the highest-paying firms in Manhattan in five years, because he lived and breathed it, hustled, and really "got it").
Good and great lawyers come out of every law school.
And some successful lawyers are absolutely brilliant, but that's not a requirement, either.
More than just attending school or being bright, becoming a solid or good lawyer takes time, experience, and the right mix of confidence and humility to hone substantive knowledge (what the law is), technical skills (how not to get your shit tossed for missing deadlines or not filing it as required), and strategic acumen (what, when, how best to achieve your client's goals), to say nothing of sharpening your ethical knowledge/ instincts to recognize where you're about to fuck yourself or your client.
John Grisham novels aside, junior lawyers with even the most rigorous training under the best practitioners in their fields don't have all this down yet. The biggest weakness at that point, though, is arrogance and thinking they know more than they do. Nick is still stuck at that level.
Nick had no training, he blew off law school, and he really didn't even try practicing for long. What he did get involved in was low-level stuff (appropriate and totally fine), but somehow has managed to piss off both judges and local lawyers, get an ethical complaint going, get sued, be involved in what seems to be ruination of at least one man's life (technically Ty's error, if I understand correctly, but if Nick had been on the ball, then he, too, would have been watching requirements/ timelines/ whatever, whether or not involved specifically as an attorney - because that's what you do).
And all the while he yaps on lawtube with consistently incorrect and shallow takes that are more opinion/wishful thinking than law but that he presents as authoritative or pRoVoCaTiVe. Unlike more experienced attorneys online, he has no actual experience to say, well it could go like this or like that. And he's not even an ace on the underlying substantive law, nor, as has been noted, does he prep enough (he clearly doesn't "love the law").
But again, maybe the biggest offense is that at this point he doesn't even have the "excuse" of being just another arrogant know-little baby lawyer. He was admitted to the Bar in 2015. He should have much more experience, knowledge, and judgment after 8 years than at 1 or 2 (whether actively practicing now or not). But he doesn't.
It's fine to decide not to practice actively - but it is unseemly to front like straggling through school, picking up a couple of courthouse cases or small contracts with no on-the-ground guidance, not deep-diving on your own to learn the law (at least about your own case in which you are a defendant!), admittedly being uninterested in learning your craft, and not having the humility to shut up and learn, means you have any actual credibility as a lawyer/legal professional. He still acts like a knobby-headed twit who doesn't know what he doesn't know. That's not cute in a law school graduate, but it's inexcusable in someone who has claimed Bar membership for 8 years and who makes a living off those credentials.
