Q. What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean.
A. A good start.
Old joke, but it makes a point. From those thoughtful folks at Above the Law, and echoed by those friends of the law at Overlawyered, comes a report that a Wisconsin legislator proposed to do away with the University of Wisconsin Law School because of lawyer overpopulation.
The notion, of course, is facially bizarre, but behind this stupid idea lies a small idea that might be worthy of greater consideration. Many of the problem that the public perceives with the legal profession has its roots in the hard reality that there may well be more lawyers in the United States than it can handle. As lawyers find it increasingly difficult to find clients and earn a living, they stretch to find new revenue streams, New causes of action are raised. New client bases are created. New views of ethical limits are developed.
These things aren’t happening solely to defend the rights of the downtrodden in post-industrial society. In large measure, they happen when our traditional role in society doesn’t pan out the way it is supposed to, and lawyers find that their ticket from the bar no longer guarantees a ticket for a meal.
Now I realize that when kids are reaping $190,000 as first year associates, the very idea that not all lawyers have a Ferrari on back order strikes some as shocking. But this trend has been happening for as long as I’ve practiced law. I doubt that anyone enters law with the intention of being a scoundrel, but the unfulfilled promise of a bright future drives many to push the envelope. And many push it too far.
Thinning out the herd is one way of addressing this situation. Law schools take in, and push out, a lot of new blood every year. Sure, there are the handful who will get the Biglaw jobs. A few of those will even stay there long enough to reap the real rewards a dozen years later. But there will be a group who will be very disappointed to learn that the practice of law didn’t work out too well for them. Some will wallow in misery. Some will turn to those lawyer adds that make you want to puke. Some will have the government seal of approval on their livelihood, but will end up being a parasite on society.
It’s unclear to me how the many law schools in America decide how many lawyers to churn out year after year. Somehow, I imagine it has more to do with how many chairs they have then any other rational criteria. Schools must see what the rest of us do, but which school would want to be the first to cut its entering class for the good of the herd? Maybe it will take some yahoo legislator’s inane proposal to give more thoughtful minds pause to think.
Another path would be for bar examiners to cut back on the pass rates for the bar exams. While would serve the dual purpose of upgrading the knowledge requirements for lawyers as well, it seems markedly unfair to let kids sit through 3 years of school (and pay for it as well) with the knowledge that a percentage of them will never be permitted to become a lawyer. Of course, by cutting the number of law school seats nationwide, schools will upgrade the quality of their students through selectivity, which should serve a similar purpose.
Is this idea elitist? The laissez faire amongst us would argue that the marketplace should weed out the weak and incompetent, and survival of the fittest will naturally do the job for us. Ironically, these are the same people behind the overlawyered concept, complaining that our over-swelled ranks is the cause of our litigation explosion and ridiculous abuse of the system for crass profit. Of course, the latter point has merit. If fewer lawyers practiced, then they would be too busy litigating strong, significant cases to have time to grasp at litigation straws. And the pool of funds for lawyers would be distributed over a smaller group, thus increasing each lawyers’ share.
When the herd has grown too large for the available food, it must either be thinned or some will starve and die. Does this apply to lawyers as well?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What would happen if federal loan guarantees were unavailable for law school loans?
Certainly another way to thin the herd, but definitely the wrong basis to do so. It would make law school unaffordable for many, leaving law to the financial elite. Ever wonder how many college kids asked themselves, “investment banker, public defender, investment banker, public defender?”
SHG
Well, Mark, lawyers like myself, who didn’t grow up with the privilege some others did, would not be able to contribute to and participate in society in the fundamental way lawyers do. Your proposal is a step backwards in terms of the equality of opportunity federal loans afford.
This article is what’s inane. If there are too many lawyers, the market will figure it out and people will go do something else. Limiting opportunities to participate in our democracy to those whose parents can afford grad school is a not a solution to any problem.
Also, if we are seeing new causes of action (are we?), it’s not because there are too many lawyers; it’s because lawyers are creative and try to enforce any and all rights their clients might have. That’s what we do, and it doesn’t matter how many of us there are. Lawyers will always push the envelope in their pleadings.
“If there are too many lawyers, the market will figure it out and people will go do something else.”
Your faith in the market may not be shared by all, and may be a tad simplistic. They might also dispute whether becoming a lawyer is an “opportunity to participate in our democracy.” Jury duty, yes. Voting, absolutely. Practicing law. Nah.
SHG
I’m not worried about new causes of action. I am, however, worried about lawyers”>http://temporaryattorney.blogspot.com/”>lawyers like these who went to law school expecting a big payoff to be handed to them on a silver platter, as well as the many other lawyers (I daresay the majority) who are not contributing to society.
I see a similarity to the “technical institutes” that lure people with the promise of a saleable education, help them get federally-guaranteed student loans to pay for it, and don’t provide anything that employers want to buy.
The market is not “figuring it out,” and won’t as long as the government is tampering with the market, encouraging people to become lawyers and law schools to spew them out.
If student loans were not federally guaranteed, money would still be available, but it would be more expensive. Law students wouldn’t be willing to borrow as much of it. Law schools would have to lower their tuition.
Law school would no longer be a haven for those idlers who don’t know what to do with themselves after college. People who burned to be lawyers, however, would find a way to do so.