Hot topics

The annual Association of American Law Schools conference is in full swing in Washington DC today. The conference is a classic academic boondoggle, at which something in the neighborhood of a thousand law professors, in the words of Paul Horwitz, "gather together to sit in hotel lobbies, checking their Iphones and surreptitiously glancing at other people's conference badges.  They also occasionally, and mostly accidentally, attend panels."  (This is no doubt meant somewhat satirically, but it happens to also be a fairly precise description of the actual event. Academic conferences in general are prone to the sorts of petty corruption satirized so amusingly in David Lodge's novel Small World. The AALS annual meeting is especially prone to this sort of thing in that it really isn't an academic conference at all, but rather a "faculty development fund" fueled schmoozefest).


There was some discussion over at PrawfsBlawg of the potential unseemliness of hordes of law professors wining and dining at various receptions and gala luncheons, given the perilous economic condition of so many recent law graduates (I should emphasize that it's becoming increasingly clear that "recent" in this context has turned out to mean the last ten, fifteen, or even twenty years, rather than since 2008, as so many legal academics continue to imagine). Update: Apparently Dan Markel doesn't want to talk about this.  My own view is that symbolism counts, and that the unfortunate symbolism inherent in holding a four-day bacchanal of this type under present conditions is exacerbated by the AALS's reluctance to allow any formal discussion of a question which AALS Executive Director Susan Westerberg Prager seems to consider a marginal topic, i.e., (polite version) is American legal education currently based on a sustainable long-term business model that provides a reasonable return on investment to law graduates, or (less polite version) has law school become a rip-off?

Apparently this topic is so marginal that  there's little need to address it at any of the dozens of panels being held at AALS over the next few days:

Few sessions at the law school conference reflect this concern. In descriptions that run for pages, none mention student debt or employment outcomes. Only a very few address the changes in legal education, focusing instead on changes in the profession and long-term challenges for law schools (such as those related to alumni giving).


“It really makes you wonder how serious they are, how introspective they’re actually being,” said Kyle McEntee, the executive director of Law School Transparency, a new nonprofit group that urges law schools to release better figures on job placement and other student outcomes.

Those sessions that do focus on changing law schools seem to be “tinkering,” McEntee said. “The one critical question is how can we reduce the cost of educating lawyers.”

One one think. Nevertheless Prager had the chutzpah (when choosing legal administrators, measuring their capacity for chutzpah is as crucial as measuring a college cornerback's 40-yard dash time at the NFL draft combine) to claim that the whole "does what we're doing actually make any sense?" thing came up at the last minute, and nobody was ready to talk about it in a cogent way.

One reason for the disparity is that conferences are planned far in advance, with some sessions proposed almost a year before the faculty and administrators convene, said Susan Westerberg Prager, the association’s executive director. Many sessions also reflect faculty members’ interests in specific areas of law, such as tax or international law, rather than questions facing law schools as a whole.

Although the association does add sessions on “hot topics,” including sessions this year on Libya and the Occupy Wall Street protests, those are determined by which proposals are submitted, and there was not a strong proposal for a session on the legal education crisis, Prager said.

Here's the proposal Jim Milles spent a few weeks organizing back in October:

Beyond Transparency: The Crisis of Confidence in Legal Education

Law schools have long kept a comfortable distance from the concerns of the practicing bar. Earlier calls for reform such as the MacCrate Report (1992), the Carnegie Foundation’s Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Practice of Law (2007), and Stuckey et al, Best Practices for Legal Education (2007), have led to a greater emphasis on more practical training, at least in law school admissions brochures if not always in the curriculum. Increasing competition for rankings has also changed the dynamics of reputation with respect to academic study and practical training at some law schools. Fundamentally, however, most schools have seen little change in the curriculum and overall approach to delivery of instruction since the last century.

 Despite this, students have continued to flock to law schools, and more law schools have sought and received accreditation. Recently, however, a series of high-profile news reports, blogs, lawsuits by recent graduates, ABA disciplinary actions against law schools, and calls from Congress for stricter regulation have brought increased public attention to fundamental questions about the delivery of legal education in the U.S. What was once dismissed as the unfounded complaints of a minority of embittered law students is approaching a full-blown scandal. Issues such as the ABA’s capture by the law schools it is meant to accredit and regulate, the skyrocketing cost of a legal education in the face of what some argue is a long-term restructuring in the legal market and a permanent downturn in employment, and law schools’ failure to disclose meaningful and accurate information regarding employment prospects, are converging into a widespread sense of disillusionment and dissatisfaction with legal education.

While the perspectives and methods of the panelists vary, each has been a voice for reform within legal education. Some call for a strengthened regulatory hand; others call for deregulation of the legal profession or for voluntary collective action by law schools. All share a concern for the improvement of legal education and the profession. This panel will be an opportunity for a candid and highly interactive assessment of the situation and directions forward.

Confirmed list of panel members:
Professor Paul F. Campos (University of Colorado Law School) –
Professor Kim Diana Connolly (University at Buffalo Law School) –
Professor Jeffery L. Harrison (University of Florida Levin College of Law) –
Professor William D. Henderson (Indiana University, Maurer School of Law) –
Associate Professor Lucille Jewel (Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School) –
Professor Larry E. Ribstein (University of Illinois College of Law) –*
Professor Brian Tamanaha (Washington University School of Law) –

I'm given to understand this wasn't the only such proposal put forward.  In expressing his disappointment that no such proposal was approved, Paul Horwitz hastens to add that he isn't accusing the AALS of hidden motives or bad faith.  And I admit that it's possible Prager et.al. simply didn't think this was an important enough topic and/or an informed enough group of speakers to warrant a panel (in evaluating bureaucratic decision making, it's often difficult to distinguish actual corruption from sheer incompetence).  In the end, it doesn't really matter.

Yesterday, a guest blogger on Horwitz's blog tried to get a reaction out of him by titling a post "Paul Campos is Right," apparently on the theory that such an outrageous observation was guaranteed to elicit a response.  I realize the style of this blog gets under Horwitz's skin, but in the end I wonder if we really disagree on what, contra Prager, seems to be the question of the moment. That question could be phrased, Does it make sense for the average law student to incur the amount of debt the average law student must now incur ($100,000, at 7%-8% interest, non-dischargeable in bankruptcy; actually this is a conservative estimate, as current 1Ls will probably average more on the order of $125,000 in law school debt by the time they graduate), given the average law graduate's job prospects?

I'm genuinely curious how many of the people who will be milling around the buffet table with G&Ts in their hands this weekend would still say "yes, it does." I'm even more curious as to why they would. It would have been nice to discuss this in a formal quasi-academic setting today.

*RIP: I didn't know Ribstein personally, but I knew from his writing that he was one of the few legal academics currently engaged in a really serious way with the issues this blog is about. Indeed, the last thing he ever published, as far as I know, was a critique of the AALS's rejection of this panel.