Drafting Lawyers?

What to Do With All the Baby Lawyers
Andrew Cohen, Washington Post, December 3, 2007

This front-page article is a classic dog-bites-woman story: about a law student who, after much self-absorbed agonizing, decided to take a high-paying job as an associate at a big law firm instead of taking a public interest position. For generations law students have faced this choice, and typically have made this decision. Still, the story gives me another opportunity to rant against a system of supply and demand that is so warped and twisted it ought to be the subject of a congressional investigation -- a system, you should be reminded, that costs you money. The co-conspirators are law students, law school administrators (who charge outrageous amounts of money for tuition), law firm recruiters (who pay outrageous amounts of money for starting salaries for baby lawyers) and the schmillions of clients out there who accept outrageous litigation costs.

* * * * * * * * * *

Wow, what a curious set of thoughts. Having practiced law for many years and taught at a private law school for more years, I agree with some of what Mr. Cohen writes. He is correct, I believe that law school tuition is unnecessary high. In preparing for testimony before a state bar commission on "access to justice," I did a study on tuition increases at my own law school since my student days. Over the period of the study, the consumer price index had quadrupled but tuition had increased ninefold. The quality of the professional education had not increased significantly. Indeed, a pretty good argument could be made that it had decreased because the faculty had become ever more 'eggheaded.' The faculty were not interested much in the practice of law; it was in large measure to escape the onerous demands of the practice of law that they sought refuge in the law school. The curriculum came to include more and more esoteric and liberal arts type courses that may well have been interesting, but realistically were of rather little value as preparation for the practice of law. Tuition kept going up because of the availability of educational loan money, the students' willingness (probably the wrong word in many cases) to incur very large debts, and the university's practice of skimming off a good share of the law school's profits to support things like the graduate program in the theology department. And let us not forget the American Bar Association's role in the steady increase of law school revenues. The ABA entered into a consent decree with the US Justice Department (before it became corrupted) that (if I recall correctly) essentially admitted a form of price-fixing in its accreditation activities. In sum, there is much to be pretty disgusted about in American legal education.

On the other hand, how are these systemic problems helped by conscripting all law school graduates for two years of required service in 'the public sector'? Do you equate, Mr. C., working for the government with working for, e.g., the Salvation Army? And how many conscripted new law grads would do what many new law grads have done for years, i.e., get a job in government that will give them a leg up in getting a job with those law factories you abhor? A stint with the IRS or SEC or EPA can be turned to good use working for a big firm on behalf of big money corporate interests. Lastly, why do you ignore that substantial sector of the legal practice that serves non-corporate clients, the solo practitioners and small firm lawyers who help people with 'personal plights'? Surely the most legally underrepresented sector of American society is not units of government or not-for-profit institutions, but rather middle class and working class citizens who are hard-pressed to afford the services of any competent lawyers. They are the ones paying those inflated prices for products and services that you complain about, Mr. C. How about some help for them while you're conscripting young lawyers?
Posted by: P. Bosley Slogthrop | December 3, 2007 04:46 AM