Susan Cartier Leibel, at Build a Solo Practice, asks whether Kirsten Wolf is the norm. Wolf is a lawyer whose mission has become telling potential law students to find a different path. Her interview in the WSJ made her the poster child for disenchantment with the legal profession, thus replacing David Wold, who tried to auction his diploma on eBay, as the punching bag for lawyer malcontent.
Susan has nailed part of the problem, that becoming a lawyer is a default career path for people who don’t really want to be a lawyer but mistakenly believe that it is a guarantee of a life of prestige and comfort. When things don’t turn out that way, they are sorely disappointed and blame the profession for their mistaken assumptions.
But there is also substantial intolerance of this mistake, which fails to recognize that this confusion about what becoming a lawyer really means is fostered and enabled by the profession and its gatekeepers, the law schools.
Stories about our noble deeds and great wealth broadcast to the world how wonderful it is to be a lawyer. Rarely does anyone hear of the downside that would scare off those not committed to the work we do. There really wouldn’t be anything wrong with this, except that we simultaneously offer the opportunity to join this wonderful profession to far more students than our society needs or our profession can absorb.
It seems the business of law schools is entirely disconnected with the profession of law. I suspect that law schools, and hence seats for potential new lawyers, exist largely as places for academics to get paychecks while plying their true love, writing law review articles to garner reputations as scholars. I think this because there’s no indication that lawprofs have any real desire to teach law students. Students are the necessary evil that sustains research.
So too many people go to law school. Too many people pass the bar exam. Too many people become lawyers. And then we’re inundated with disenchanted lawyers. Society isn’t all that thrilled about them either.
But are we blaming the symptom, the Kirsten Wolfs and the David Wolds of the world (put aside whether you think his stunt was infantile, and deal with the real issue), and ignoring the disease? Access to becoming a lawyer is simply too easy, and the sheer number entering the profession year after year is simply too large.
One caveat here: It’s not that society doesn’t need better access to lawyers, as there are many instances where ordinary people can’t find affordable and competent representation. But no one wants to fill that niche because they want the prestige and the wealth that they are told is their due. But we don’t seem to do a very good job of serving this segment of society, and few people seem too concerned about it. Of course, who am I to talk? I’m not a public defender, nor have I taken a vow of poverty to serve my fellow man. I may do my part through pro bono work, but that hardly solves the problem.
Those in the bottom 90% of second tier and lower law schools have a rude awakening coming. Some will overcome the shock because of a deep desire to practice law. Some will be left only with the shock. Calling them names, like they are all a bunch of stupid losers who should have known better, does nothing to cure the disease. Nor do individual anecdotes, from those who proclaim that “I knew what I was getting into” prove that everyone else is a worthless moron.
For those inclined to be critical of young lawyers for whom the panacea of wealth and prestige hasn’t happened, be a little more understanding. Kirsten Wolf may not be the norm, but she isn’t exactly alone either. We would do better to put the brakes on the number of people entering the law then to blame those for whom the law hasn’t played out nearly as well as they were told it would. We would have a stronger, more competent and healthier profession if we stopped beating up the symptoms and instead cured the disease.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Scott, I’m not intolerant of those who made a mistake. I’m intolerant of those who would proclaim themselves on a mission to encourage others from going to law school because they were half-hearted in their reasons then angry when opportunities did not abound.
Given the information available on the internet today, citizen bloggers abounding, information everywhere, anyone who goes to law school today has no excuse for not knowing what the realities are. If they then go forward in spite of what they hear, they should not be complaining they’ve been misled. If she absolutely knew she must be a lawyer and the jobs didn’t pan out, she would have found a way to make it work as did the other Boston University School of Law Student I reference.
I could regale you with stories about schools having a mandatory flunk rate the first year just to get additional tuition. Then a readmit program for another year’s tuition with a mandatory flunk out rate, too. One program I am aware of in particular resulted in one law student who was encouraged then flunked out by the school twice. He came to the school with a gun, killing the dean, the recruiter-turned-student who brought him on board and several others. It is a two-fold problem BUT we are ultimately in control of ourselves and the decisions we make.
Clearly the law schools have culpability because their agendas are very different then the students’.
But I don’t find her mission inspired. I find it self-serving and placing responsibility on others when she alone has responsibility for her decisions.
I was a little more sympathetic to David Wold because, if what he purports to be doing now is valid it is entrepreneurship. If he been taught the business end of practicing law he could have been OK. And that was the school’s failing.
I’m troubled by the argument that the information is out there on the internet for anyone to find, and therefore it’s their own fault. There’s no requirement that they read only the negative, and there’s a ton of positive, isn’t it great to be a lawyer stuff, out there as well. Also, this stuff is coming out far more now, and doesn’t explain what someone like Kirsten, who went to law school before this information was available, was supposed to read when she made the decision to become a lawyer.
This personal responsibility blame is a little too facile. The profession promotes a positive image, and then we blame students for having believed it? Even your specific issue, that opening up a solo practice is the cure, has its limits. Beyond the fact that not everyone is cut out to be a solo, it assumes that if you find a niche (so much for noble causes) and market properly, you too can be a success. But as you well know, there is only so much good work out there, and eventually the concept will fail under its own weight. We simply can’t sustain that many solo practices. There are just too many lawyers.
Nor does the argument that “if she really wanted to be a lawyer, she would have found a way” answer anything. Not even if she really, really, really wanted to be a lawyer would she be assured that life would be wonderful.
Scott, this is not an either/or situation, all or nothing, innocent victim or culpable. My issue is she is not a martyr and I don’t agree with or respect her mission. Her particular situation is not one of a lamb led to the slaughter.
There are plenty of others who could be a better poster child for the travesties of law school.
And for those who really want to be lawyers they will find a way…it’s not all about prestige and money. The legal profession is changing. That doesn’t mean there aren’t many who fervently wish to be practicing attorneys regardless the changes and the costs.
And there is plenty of information out there and one should read both the positive and negative and then decide. But forewarned is forearmed. Deciding to only read and listen to that which caters to our fantasies isn’t responsible and it’s not an excuse.
And going solo is not a panacea. But it is educational malpractice not to provide this component during the course of one’s legal education…especially given the changing employment landscape for graduates.
Scott, this is not an either/or situation, all or nothing, innocent victim or culpable. My issue is she is not a martyr and I don’t agree with or respect her mission. Her particular situation is not one of a lamb led to the slaughter.
There are plenty of others who could be a better poster child for the travesties of law school.
So, you don’t disagree with her message, but just don’t like her in particular?
And for those who really want to be lawyers they will find a way…it’s not all about prestige and money. The legal profession is changing. That doesn’t mean there aren’t many who fervently wish to be practicing attorneys regardless the changes and the costs.
This is just rhetorical. “They will find a way” doesn’t mean anything. “The legal profession is changing” doesn’t mean anything. Vagueries are fine for selling things, but don’t make for viable discussions.
And there is plenty of information out there and one should read both the positive and negative and then decide. But forewarned is forearmed. Deciding to only read and listen to that which caters to our fantasies isn’t responsible and it’s not an excuse.
The information is first becoming available now, so that everyone up until now has been left out in the cold, and you’re also assuming that they are reading what you are reading. There are plenty of sources of information, from bar associations to parents and friends who are lawyers, that doesn’t include blogs. You cannot blame people because they aren’t reading a blog.
And going solo is not a panacea. But it is educational malpractice not to provide this component during the course of one’s legal education…especially given the changing employment landscape for graduates.
Agreed, though I absolutely disagree that students fresh out of law school are equipped to hang out a shingle, both from their side and for the sake of the public. They leave law school wholly unprepared to practice law and until they can be trusted to represent people, it would be professional malpractice to put people’s welfare in their hands.
So here’s my “cure” for the disease. All law schools, other than Tier 1, should have a big disclaimer in red at the top of the application stating the following:
“Warning: Unless you are in the top 10% of your law school class, you should not anticipate finding gainful and satisfying employment as an attorney, and you are likely to incur debt in the amount of $100,000, which you will be unable to repay with the income you will receive. Unless you want to be a lawyer so badly that you accept these terms, do not apply!”
Scott,
So, when I came out of law school and created my own firm immediately without a blip on the grievance or malpractice screen for 13 years, became very well regarded for my work, my work ethic, and made money helping people resolve their legal issues…I was an anomaly…along with countless others out there who have done this? I don’t think so. Nor are any of the others who do so responsibly and with proper guidance. That’s just another myth perpetuated by the profession.
Oh, and I don’t dislike this law student. I just don’t think she is a victim of anything. Fifteen years ago when I entered law school I was able to do my due diligence and cost/benefit analysis about my chances of acquiring employment without the internet. The internet just makes it easier. Back before blogging she was not in an information wasteland any more than I was 15 years ago.
I know you can take sword play with the best of them, but this is my final thrust and parry.
But you, Susan Cartier Leibel, are indeed an anomoly. As for the “countless others” who have achieved even a pale version of your success by starting their own practice straight out of law school, I am still waiting to meet them after 25 years of practice.
And so my riposte to your parry.
Scott, I am not an anomaly when it comes to hanging a shingle out of law school and doing well. And it’s fair to say I may be in possession of quite an extensive list of those who have come out of law school, hung a shingle and have done well or are on the road to doing very well based upon their definition of success.
But thanks for considering be an aberration ;^)
An anomoly indeed, but never an aberration.
Newly Minted and Flying Solo
As I always say, when my favorite anomaly,
Newly Minted and Flying Solo
As I always say, when my favorite anomaly,
Actually, even though the starting salaries aren’t all that high, (in this area a newbie, not at a large firm, can expect to start at 40-45K) they’re doable. And they do go up in time. The killer is the cost of debt service.
I love what I do, and after 7 years I’m finally in a position to improve my lot in life–a little this year, hopefully a lot next year–but economically, I’d have been better off with truckdriving school and payments on a Peterbilt. Or staying with my previous bureaucratic enslavement. Economics aren’t everything though, and I’m glad I made the call. I didn’t take a vow of poverty, but I didn’t do it for the money, either.
I think you make the point well when you write that you didn’t take a vow of poverty, but didn’t do it for the money either.
As much as I like and admire the work that Susan, Carolyn and Kevin are doing as marketing and solo practice gurus, I think that there’s an unfortunate tendency in the sales pitch to ignore the problems and hype the benefits. The reason so much time is spent “refuting” my concerns is that there is too much validity to them, and this is bad for their business.
But even though they protest too much, you prove the point that with the right purpose, and recognition that every lawyer isn’t going to hit the jackpot, we can perhaps bring in those people who really want to be lawyers and recognize the pitfalls. There’s nothing wrong with that. And if it means fewer but better and happier lawyers, then I think it’s precisely where we ought to go.
Newly Minted and Flying Solo (Updated)
As I always say, when my favorite anomaly,
SHG and Susan,
From the outside, this is obviously an issue about which you both share a great passion.And, I suspect it is because you care-either about people, the profession, or both.
Meanwhile, I find it interesting that this appears under the banner “Simple Justice” which calls to mind the story (book/movie of the same name) of Charles Hamilton Houston and the work leading to Brown and the destruction of Plessy.
I truly believe that what is going on in the legal profession regarding this “phenomenon” is related to our system of class structure.People do not like to discuss class/barriers to entry in our society because, quite frankly, it eats away at this thing we call “hope”-the hope that the American dream and promise are there for all to claim, so long as we “follow the rules.”
Now, I do believe in this dream. I just don’t think that the rules are being fully explained. Students who have access to a plethora of wealthy contacts and powerful individuals will find themselves well-courted–regardless of class placement and enough money and the right “recommendations” can remedy just about any LSAT score. Students who merely offer the desire to work hard and who do not have the sort of resources OR talent to buy their way to a top educational credential, will not likely be. So, there is this idea out here that WE succeed because WE are hardworking and talented. There is also this idea that I/you (individually) fail because I/you am/are lazy and/or untalented. The truth is that some succeed because of talent and some succeed because of access. But, the rules work best when one has BOTH, as talent alone is shaky.
What does this have to do with Kristen?Well, Kristen THOUGHT she was playing by the rules, but she didn’t quite know the rules as well as she thought she did.Is she a victim or loser? Neither. She’s angry.
And, this is where I think this is interesting. Prof. Guinier’s Miner’s Canary cautions that racial strife may indicate class issues. I think this is too narrow.I think what we are seeing is a new canary gasping for air and it is a bit of an indication toward a new sort of class stratification in our society. Not that attorneys are a class, but that those born into the middle class are baited along with an incomplete or outdated set of rules-fueled by hope-and this professional in-fighting is indicative of a larger outrage experienced in a variety of segments, as a man with an engineering degree from State U works as a tech for Verizon and an MIT STUDENT is offered 80k before graduation.
Bottom line: Education without sufficient access and talent toward its utilization may be a waste of resources and may cause members of one class to shift their limited economic resources further into the hands of those already owning a disproportionate share. As we all SHOULD have learned from Up From Slavery-why does a sharecropper working in the fields need to learn French? And, I would add–why would he pay to learn?
Rochelle,
Thank you for a very thoughtful and interesting perspective on the issue. Don’t mind Susan and I. Sometimes we just quarrel for the fun of it. You, on the other hand, have given all of us some very important things to think about.