John McGinnis, who teaches law at Northwestern, and Russell Mangas, a lawyer at Kirkland & Ellis, have published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, arguing that states should allow people to take the bar after majoring in law in college and then serving in one-year post-graduate apprenticeships. Given that I made the same proposal last month I naturally agree with the gist of their argument.
There are a bunch of practical problems with this approach, including:
(a) State bars have little incentive to allow the even greater competition among providers of legal services which this kind of approach would produce. This means such a reform would have to come from the legislature (which itself is going to have a lot of lawyers in it).
(b) Questions of inter-generational fairness. Under this approach a new generation of aspiring attorneys will end up paying perhaps a quarter the average tuition that the previous generation did in order to become eligible to pass the bar. This means new lawyers will have much lower entry costs and therefore a significant competitive advantage over lawyers who graduated just a few years earlier.
(c) It will become even harder to make a living practicing law, although the cost of entry will be much lower. Since the market for lawyers is already so heavily saturated this tradeoff will be worth it for new lawyers, but again this raises issues of comparative fairness.
(d) Legal academia will fight against this tooth and nail, for obvious reasons.
(e) I'm skeptical of the authors' claim that this approach will lead to any significant decrease in the cost of legal services, given that the market is already saturated, and that not that long ago many people went to law school while paying little more than the opportunity cost of doing so (when I started teaching at CU in the early 1990s resident tuition was about $3000 per year, i.e., around $5000 per year in current dollars).
Still this sort of proposal is valuable both as a potential long-term model for radically restructuring legal education, and for the contribution it makes to the short-term goal of putting more pressure on law schools to stop behaving in the flagrantly irresponsible way they've behaved over the past generation.
Speaking of which, I had a 1L ask me for advice yesterday. He went to a prestigious private school and had a classically unmarketable humanities/social science major, while incurring $35K in educational debt. He's a K-JD kid in his early 20s who doesn't seem to have done anything except go to school. He wants to do public interest/government law (Update: In regard to how practical this desire might be see this comment. And this one. And this one.) He has no interest at this point in working for a law firm. He got middling grades his first semester. He's got no scholarship money or help from his family, so if he stays the course he's going to have around $200K in educational debt by the time he's done ($110K or so for tuition -- eight years ago he would have paid $33K total in tuition -- $40K for living expenses, the undergrad debt, plus accrued interest). This debt will have an average interest rate of around 7.3% so he'll be looking at $15K a year in interest payments. CU's LRAP program is very small -- the current income from it will cover the debt payments of perhaps three people in this kid's eventual situation if he stays the course. Interestingly he had never heard of IBR.
What am I, or any other member of the faculty, supposed to tell law students in these kinds of (extremely commonplace) circumstances when they ask us for guidance? I would love to hear the opinions of other legal academics on this precise point (as well as those of other people of course).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So the extent of your efforts to solicit a job from him was one post, to ask him what state he was in, and nothing more.
ReplyDeleteI have a job. I was just pointing out that he would not give any information when asked direct questions. Look, I don't think this guy is even real. But playing along, he would not answer any questions people asked.
ReplyDeleteSo you apply for a job by interrogating the potential boss, calling him an asshole and otherwise berating him.
ReplyDeleteI wonder why you people are unemployed.
9:03:
ReplyDeleteYes, because when I started to read more of his posts I realized that he was a big asshole who was not good enough to be my boss. See, interviews and research work both ways. The good news is, I did not have to take the job before figuring it out. HE will miss out on the experience I could offer him, and I offer a TON. I work pretty cheap too. He is a jackass and he is the reason why he can't find the talent. The talent is smart enough to avoid jackasses like him.
Yeah, 9:03.
ReplyDeleteHe or she was probably spending his/her time looking for work from other, more decent employers from whom he/she could learn.
There are such individuals out there. And as to AES's comments that a partner is not there to teach and is simply there to make money, as a person who has done the hiring before, I can tell you that I would much prefer an employee that expected to learn, grow and expand from me and the business rather than simply tread water to earn an income.
But I guess we will have our differences.
Maybe that's why AES and 1:13 still have profitable businesses, and used to "[do] the hiring."
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, the attitude of bottom-feeder hitting attorney above runs throughout the industry, from his bess pool all the way to the top most respected firms. Thats why we have doc reviewers and 2500 billable hours for associates. An employment crisis? Why the ABA just approves foreign doc review. A debt/tuition crisis? Why, law schools just raise tuition and lower admittance standards.
ReplyDeleteThis business is all about trying to see how far you can stick your hand into the pockets of the guy below you.
To be fair, the bottom-feeder would be the attorney who can afford to hire no one at all.
ReplyDelete@9:16PM
ReplyDeleteThe business model has changed. I prefer training associates and holding them to higher standard when they make a mistake. The problem is that there are many firms, such as collections and foreclosure mills, which get paid a paltry fee per file they process (ergo the robo-signing practices). Those firms operate on a high volume basis and are not looking for law review or order of the coif types. They want warm bodies to make appearances and generate pleadings to keep up with the workload. These firms look for attorneys with experience and they assume the candidates responding to their ads have some experience. So in that respect, neither I nor you should expect these putrid law practices to train attorneys. Law schools don't teach students how to practice law. This is not shocking news.
At my age, I don't have the time to teach or mentor. I am expected to bring in clients and make sure I retain them. What many people fail to realize is that the practice of law is not about how much law you know but how much business you can generate. This is why many associates wash out after a couple of years from established firms. Many associates don't grow and prefer to collect a paycheck rather than adopt a hunter's mentality. An associate at my firm can make as much money as he wants. For example, we will split each case or client he/she brings in 50/50. Imagine that for a moment. I am providing an office, secretary, paralegal, a salary, health benefits, 401K and I only get 50% of what the associate brings in on his own. I am losing on that deal, yet I honor it. Unfortunately, most associates are not proactive and expect to make partner by just billing. Maybe you will make income partner or counsel but that is where your career will hit the ceiling.
A.E.S.
No the bottom feeder is the attorney who maximizes profits at the expense of absolutely everything else and who lives at the edges of the profession - where having a law degree is the only thing separating him and every other scumbag on the street.
ReplyDelete@9:09 - if you're a troll, get a life. But if you really think these thoughts, you do realize that people laugh behind your back and your employees dream about throwing you out the window?
ReplyDeleteA.E.S. - then don't hire graduates straight out of law school if you don't have time to teach or mentor. But as you point out, law schools don't teach students how to practice law. Surely someone as incredibly, awesomely, frighteningly intelligent and wise as you can see the rub though?
ReplyDeleteIf AES and 1:13 don't hire graduates, then they'll be just like you. I'd prefer that they create jobs. Thank you.
ReplyDelete@9:52PM
ReplyDeleteI see the rub but you reproach me as if I should care for the plight of the recent grad. Do I have a duty to train or mentor the next generation of lawyers? If that's the case, maybe I should set up an ABA approved workshop and charge $100K per person to teach young lawyers what they should have learned in law school after dropping $120K to learn how to "think" like a lawyer. Young lawyers and prospective law students should be smart enough to realize by now that breaking into this business is harder than selling ice to an eskimo. I would question any person's judgment, especially if they incurred substantial debt to pursue a pipe dream.
A.E.S.
@9:57 - they don't you moron.
ReplyDelete"Do I have a duty to train or mentor the next generation of lawyers?"
ReplyDeleteThen who does my incredibly and awesomely intelligent and wise friend? Still don't fully see the rub do you....?
No one 10:07. No one owes you anything.
ReplyDeleteAES and 1:13 create jobs and opportunity even though they don't have to. You create nothing.
They are your betters in every way, and you are a whiny hypocrite who does nothing for anyone while expecting everyone to do everything for you.
LOL.....today I learned that people are created and born with the full knowledge of how to practice the law, like magic. Man, I wish I was born with that knowledge like AES and bottom-feeder partner were.
ReplyDeleteIts been fun arguing with trolls.
@10:15 - Im a mid-level associate at a top firm (cue the denial from you my predictable little troll)....what do you do?
10:15:
ReplyDeleteYou have been commenting for hours about how those who create jobs are better than those who don't. You have said it over and over despite it being shot down. Add some new thoughts and ideas to the discussion. Get a life and quite acting like a mental midget. You are either too stupid to come up with anything new or you have a serious personality disorder. You are a jackass and you signify so much of what is wrong with this country. I DESPISE people like you. You give Americans, lawyers, and most of all human beings a bad name. STFU and move on.
Asshole.
Yes because people with the "give-nothing and demand-everything" entitlement mentality of a bum commonly advance to mid-level in top-firms.
ReplyDeleteEnjoy your chance to converse with people who are better than you, as you wouldn't get it anywhere but here.
What are you talking about, you dope? How does one become partner without first being a mid-level? Don't hurt your brain trying to figure that one out, genius.
ReplyDeleteAnd again, what do you do?
Also:
"Today I learned that people are created and born with the full knowledge of how to practice the law, like magic. Man, I wish I was born with that knowledge like AES and bottom-feeder partner were."
Still waiting, genius, on how these wunderkinds of industry magically learned the practice...?
The only thing you are "mid-level" is schizophrenic.
ReplyDelete...thats what I thought. Good night, genius. Hopefully you won't go to bed crying into your pillow.
ReplyDeleteEnjoy your mother's basement.
ReplyDeleteIt really hurts when you can't answer basic questions that reveal your life philosophy as not much more than what my dog did on his daily walk, doesn't it? Its OK, you don't have to lash out.
ReplyDeleteNotice how this person keeps calling people "genius" in the tone of sarcasm. Project much because you are not a genius?
ReplyDeleteLooks like I am late to the party.
ReplyDeleteLawProf, to answer your question, I would first defer the worried student to the career services department of your school. There, he can find out whether he will qualify for OCI and he can probably see firsthand where he will stand careerwise. He should also be advised to talk to upperclassmen, preferably 3Ls about their job prospects. At that point, he should have enough information as to whether he should continue. Also, he should do this quickly as I am sure he would want a full tuition refund should he choose to drop out. As knowledgeable as you are about the dirty laundry of legal education, you are in no position to tell a student what he should do. You can only help him make an informed decision.
I see, so you're a combination of Freud and Rand now. Yes, pure genius. Such a genius in fact that you reduce to answer basic questions.
ReplyDeleteI know after your million posts today that you need the final word. So have it. Good night, genius. Hopefully you can think up some basic answers to these basic questions by tomorrow. Doubt it.
Your turn.
WCL make sure you read the entire thread. Lots of pwnage.
ReplyDelete11:00
ReplyDeleteWow...
Don't ever offer a job to a person who does not want to work.
ReplyDeleteProf. Campos- you need to tell this student to drop out. If you don't want to, I will. He needs to start looking for jobs be can do, staying in school is making his situation worse.
ReplyDeletePerhaps he should return to undergrad and get a degree in science.
Just an observation, this "troll" job-creating partner is a complete d-bag that refuses to give up the argument. Obviously, many of us on this blog don't agree with your pious comments and I can only imagine you would be a horror to work for. Why don't you just give up the argument. Certainly you have more important things to do that try to indoctrinate us into your asshole ways.
ReplyDeleteProfs 6:44
ReplyDeleteThe information available on the Internet is never cut and dry. For instance, most of these comments could be written by a handful of people and not 10,000 unique law students. Now, as an admire of your blog I have to say that you probably have a very large audience relatively speaking compared to other law blogs, however the comments provide only sound bites and nothing truly compelling. AES called it a birds eye view, but i disagree. Most prospective law students don't have time to keep updated on the scam movement. They they are busy enrolling in barbri courses, finding a job, maybe their In a relationship, working a part time job, this list goes on and on. Denial is incredibly powerful, as the cliche goes ignorance is bliss. And as a Simon and garfunkle fan, those words are very true, we hear what we want to hear.
You tell him the truth. Why is this such a difficult proposition?
ReplyDeleteThen you go through the math with him:
Approximately 200,000 in student loans amounts to approximately $2,500 a month in debt. (Planning on IBR at this point is tantamount to defrauding the taxpayer and turning himself into an indentured servant in the process.)
If he is lucky, he will get a job paying $60,000 per year. But emphasize, this is a longshot -- particularly in Colorado. $60,000 a year amounts to $5,000 per month.
Even if he lands a job at big law, he has about a 1 in 36 chance of becoming a partner. More likely, his big law career will last 18 months, at which point, he is looking at that same $60,000 a year job, if he is lucky.
With an income of $5,000 per month, he can count on paying approximately one third ($1,500) in taxes. After subtracting his student loan payments of ($2,500 a month), he is left with $1,000 a month to live on. This is just about minimum wage -- for a minimum of ten years.
He will not be able to buy a car or a house. He will not be able to take on a spouse unless he/she supports him. He certainly cannot afford a family.
The numbers don't lie.