Academic

Law Schools (and by implication, lawyers)

By Rob Heverly

There has been a lot of talk lately about whether there are too many law schools, and whether new ones should be opening or not (especially the "not" part of that). The arguments are many, but they seem to focus on a couple of themes: first, that the market can't absorb all the lawyers or, second, that the students don't know what they're getting into. We'll focus on the first one, though also touch on the second.

Dan Slater put it this way in a recent NY Times column: There are too many places at too many law schools. "As firms begin an industrywide overhaul, which has entailed slashing jobs and reconsidering hidebound inefficiencies like the lockstep salary, students will compete for half as many $160,000-a-year jobs this year as they did last."

Professor Bainbridge at UCLA added: "If law in fact is a mature industry, we face a problem of systemic oversupply. The rate at which demand for new lawyers grows has permanently leveled off. Economic recovery will help, but it will not change the fundamental structural changes in the market for lawyers." He added in a later post, and these are key passages for me:

"The solution is obvious, although how we can find the ability and the will to do it is not. We have to reduce the number of law schools. Just like GM has to close plants because of over-capacity, we in the law have to close some of our "factories."

* * *

I have no idea who would lead this charge or how they would accomplish it. No individual school would be willing to fall on its sword for the good of the whole. Nor is there any collective law czar with the power or will to do anything. "

I think this misses some things, some more important than others. On the picky side, the "GM" thing bugs me. Arguing law schools should be closed (and perhaps forced to close) is not similar to GM closing down plants; it might be similar to Toyota telling GM to close down because of an oversupply of cars, but I don't even buy that one. The economic rhetoric is tempting, but I don't think it fits.

But that's not the biggest problem here by far. There are three more important responses to this line of reasoning, each  based on the notion that law school is not just about producing the perfect number of lawyers for some theorized national market. I'll lay these out after the jump.

First, third and fourth tier law schools often serve geographic needs. Not everyone can pick up their lives and move to the community where the "best" law school that they can get into is located. Many really, really good students go to third or fourth tier schools -- where they often get scholarships -- based on location.

Next, not all law students want, expect or chase "Big Law" positions of the kind that are drying up at the moment. When Brian Leiter recently posited that the economy and problems in Big Law might hit those students outside the top 15-20 schools the hardest (Leiter's post was primarily concerned with the students, not with the market as such), Professor Reich from Whittier Law School responded that he didn't believe his school's students were necessarily going to get hit the hardest. He noted that the school's "grads do not expect to receive $160K to start, although some obtain this.  Rather, they have been finding employment recently in a variety of public offices and small-to-medium sized firms." This is another important element of "non-elite" law school education. Provide graduates to fit actual needs in public and private law, prepare them well for the practice, and give them realistic expectations.

Finally, it is not up to the elite law schools to decide the fate of students -- or even potential students -- at "the rest" of the law schools. It is not about getting the "right number" of graduates nationally (or even for a particular local market); it is about allowing students to try. Certainly potential students need and deserve accurate information. There are ethical implications to using stacked numbers regarding employment, for example, to encourage students to apply to a school. Information should be candid and up front, regardless of the state of affairs of the job market, the economy, or the student body. Students must understand the financial implications of law school loans before they take them out (and thus, must reasonably understand their job and salary prospects). But given suitable information, and suitably advised candidates, it is up to them to choose whether to go to law school or not. Whether all schools should be sending letters ala University of Miami is beyond the scope of this entry. But the students are the ones who choose, and hopefully they choose based on their own needs, desires, and enthusiasm for the law. And hopefully they'll continue to have a number of choices when it comes to following their dream of becoming a lawyer.

Full post as published by The Faculty Lounge on September 12, 2009 (boomark / email).