Bar/Bri Antitrust case

The New York Times has an article today on the case against BAR/BRI that may be of particular interest to LSD members:

Represented by an aggressive Los Angeles lawyer named Eliot G. Disner, they have filed a lawsuit charging that the company that helped them to become lawyers has operated an illegal monopoly and has overcharged hundreds of thousands of students by an average of $1,000 each - or, collectively, by hundreds of millions of dollars.

***

Lawyers for BAR/BRI deny that the company violated any provision of the antitrust laws and say they plan to contest the charges vigorously. "We believe the allegations have absolutely no merit," said Steven F. Molo, a partner at Shearman & Sterling who is representing BAR/BRI.

[UPDATE]
I had the opportunity to ask Eliot Disner a few more questions about the case and here are his responses:

Do you expect the trial to proceed in June as scheduled?
There has been some discussion about a short extension, but none proposed by [the] other side (which wants it), and none approved.

How does this case affect 3Ls who will likely be taking BarBri courses soon for the 2006 exams?
It is possible the class will be extended to 2005, maybe even 1L
signups for 2006. But, again, that's up to [the] judge.

What alternatives do you recommend for those students (including yours truly)?
Alternatives? The key is to take the best course that tests you through the bar. If that happens to be Bar-Bri, because it is the only viable course remaining, so be it. You'll all just have to dance with the devil, I guess.

[/UPDATE]

Comments welcome.