The notion that the real training of young lawyers happens at law firms across the country, where they receive not mere salaries, but astronomical salaries subsidized by corporations (and more than a few quasi-governmental agencies living off federal bailouts) is nothing new. But when What about Clients? raised the question, eyebrows raised simultaneously.
Why, Dan Hull asked, should we be paying these useless pups when they have zero to offer and we are giving them the tools to become lawyers? They should be paying us.
This met with catcalls of derision and ridicule. That Hull guy is “nuts, flip-city, kooby-shooby.” But all visionaries are treated this way at first. After all, wasn’t Hull the same guy who predicted that crocs would become a staple for the well-dressed partner?
Holden Oliver, however, immediately recognized the merit in Hull’s outside-the-box thinking. The fact that Hull pays him played no role whatsoever. Holden writes :
As I have long been an advocate that the United States produces far too many lawyers, this “thinning the herd” argument resonates. Becoming an attorney has long been the default profession, for those who either lack an aptitude in math or have little stomach for human bodily fluids.Here’s a reaction from The Legal Beat blog of Law.line, a CLE site:
Should recent law graduates have to pay law firms for the experience they receive?…
At first glance for any prospective law student, or current law student, this idea seems ludicrous. However, it is a notion that the United Kingdom has been practicing for a hundred and fifty years. Additionally, this is similar to the education structure we have in the United States for doctors. Some argue that if this concept was implemented, only those with a strong passion for law would seek to go to law school.
When a young person has no clue what to do with his life after clutching that liberal arts sheepskin in his sweaty hand, he goes to law school. This isn’t exactly the best reason to chose a career in the law. It tends to produce lawyers who lack much interest in doing the job, and likely contributes to their misery as they feel locked into a profession that cost them a bundle and doesn’t fulfill the promise of social prominence and vast wealth. They tend not to care as much about their ethical obligations, or their clients’ welfare, since they are in it for themselves rather than to serve. Some turn out to be really bad lawyers, even though they may be smart people.
From the perspective of serving the client, there’s always the dirty little secret that big firms like to keep to themselves. When they put a half dozen young’ens on a case (and charge the client fees that would make a 20 year solo practitioner blush), it really isn’t for the clients’ benefit. They actually bring nothing, other than save an old-timer’s back by carrying his heavy bag.
While this might seem only fair to the newbie lawyer, it’s less than fair to the client who pays for the newbie lawyer to watch life in real courtrooms, or discover the joys of document review, or learn that there are certain words that are commonly expected to appear in certain legal documents, even though they don’t make any sense to the newbie.
If we were to stop worrying so much about the young lawyer, and worry a little more about the client who is subsidizing the young lawyer’s education, would that be wrong?
And if turned out that the default profession had a higher cost of entry so that college students thought twice about studying harder for organic chemistry rather than being forced into the only profession that has absolutely no prerequisites whatsoever, would that be wrong?
Don’t poo-poo this idea so quickly. There’s method to the madness.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks, sir. Some associates (regardless of pedigree) are often so bad they hurt rather than help. Hull calls their time “Spaz Hours”. No client should be charged for those hours; but clients are charged, and routinely, at many firms for SpazTime.
On behalf of spazes, I protest.
We all tend to forget that Spazzes (spelling?) are now a suspect classification in U.S.
Greetings from Palo Alto, where they train new regiments of The Smart, Entitled and Useless. I love it when Hull is abroad. I rule.
Just wait until your father gets home, young man.
The parallels to the medical profession are short-sighted, one-sided, and more than misleading.
Raise the entry barrier to law, akin to medicine (where the doctors control access to med schools like a middle-ages guild) – then let’s start ensuring first year associates they’ve actually got a chance at making partner. Doctors don’t have to sweat it out wondering if it will be “up or out” 5 years into the job.
And if turned out that the default profession had a higher cost of entry so that college students thought twice about studying harder for organic chemistry rather than being forced into the only profession that has absolutely no prerequisites whatsoever, would that be wrong?
Seems to me that there’s a big problem with raising entry costs to the legal profession: every time entry costs go up, bright kids of modest (or worse) financial means are increasingly priced out. The practice of law at the top is already overwhelmingly dominated by the sons (and occasional daughters) of privilege; the change suggested here would only exacerbate the problem.
So law students have to pay 5 years of tuition instead of 3, as well as miss out on two years salary?
That sounds like a fantastic way to make the legal industry even more insular and out-of-touch than it already is. How do you expect lower- or middle-class students to afford this “privilege,” when law schools are already charging nearly $50,000 a year?
I’m currently a 1L. I’m attending a top-10 school, so if all goes according to plan I’ll be one of those highly-paid “useless” associates this plan is complaining about. Even if I am, I’ll still be in debt for up to 10 years, between undergraduate and graduate tuition. Under your plan, there’s no way I could even think about this career.
If you want to restrict legal practice to wealthy, upper-class kids who can afford such a system, than by all means institute it at your firm. I can’t wait to see how that goes.
But why would you even think that becoming a partner is the end game? Why shoot so low?
That’s a very good point, and we’ll have to find a way to accomodate that. But it’s not a deal-breaker.
You’re point about privilege is well taken, but remember that it doesn’t change the fact that you will be useless for AT LEAST the first two years. So if you’re paid your worth, then you would owe money. Solution?
Sorry I misssed all the fun.
I do travel a lot. And it’s part of the reason I know corporate law firms (usually large ones) are talking about issues like this one. Like it’s all they can talk about. In Boston, Denver, LA, Berlin, Zürich, London, Manchester. Senior lawyers want talent but think they are going about it the wrong way. And a lot of them are pissed off at/resentful toward associates who are talented–but expensive and lost.
The Gen Y work ethic issue is just a small wrinkle in all of it.
But 1L has a really great point on additional costs/time adding to the profession’s insularity…because the idea is not to keep the law full of people who attended Exeter or Choate for free. 1L sounds serious about the law. There has to be a way to keep him/her in the system–but keep out people who are there by default. The “training periods” might help there. A seasoned lawyer who has things to teach can tell quickly who is serious and who is not about law practice. And keeping people “out” can be consensual; it’s hard to fake “I love what I am doing” when you are paying for it/making less and trying hard to show senior people that you are a good investment.
I don’t have all the answers–but I would like more ideas, details, issues like this one (1L’s). How do you sort out early the serious from the huge group of hangers-on who hurt everyone and waste your time? How much time, and what process, does it take for them to “know”? What’s fair to everyone?
What’s interesting is that the cost of entry for poor students is already high, and yet they don’t seem to have much of a clue what they’re getting into despite the struggle to pay the freight. They are still stuck on the “wealth and status” thing once their dues (and debt) are paid.
We need to do something up front as well, to scare the bejeepers out of them and make them understand beforehand that this is not the surest path to Nirvana.
And one of my best friends just sent their baby off to Choate. It’s not what it used to be.
Dan’s traveling again (I’m in heaven, of course) and this will make him mad if he sees it–but I went to a rival school where it was said: “If you can’t get a girl, get a Choatie.” Now of course Choate has girls, sort of–but it’s not that different.