I have long been of the view that the United States produces far too many lawyers for society to absorb.  Law, being the profession of last resort, takes in the strays that couldn’t hack organic chemistry, or can’t bear the sight of blood.  Law schools, which exist to support the scholarly endeavors of its professorate, needs as many warm bodies with cash as they can squeeze though the door to support its addiction.

The bottom line is miserable Biglaw associates, frivolous lawsuits brought by lawyers whose hands would otherwise be idle, a cause of action for every wrong, no matter who was at fault, and a society with no respect for the law or its practitioners.  Familiarity breeds contempt, and we all know a lawyer.

Since we, the stewards of the legal profession, have neglected to take responsibility for thinning the herd to manageable levels, enough that there is “food” for everyone, nature will do it for us.  Enter my old buddy,  Thomas Robert Malthus. 

According to David Bernstein at Volokh, who cites to Al Brophy at The Faculty Lounge, the current economic situation is having its impact on law schools, resulting in a hiring freeze at William & Mary, with more to come:

I’m expecting freezes on hiring at many universities. I asked a friend at a major law school a few weeks back what he thought the effect of the economy would be on law school hiring. … First, fewer people are going to be retiring; second, schools will be reluctant to fill vacancies. A handful of elite schools will be insulated from the downturn, I suppose. For all the rest of us, get ready for some more belt-tightening…. Maybe the real crunch will be felt next year; that’s hard to know.

Bernstein wonders whether this means that newer (or lesser?) lawprofs should start considering their options.  Polish up that resume, guys.

The implication is that this is a bad thing for legal scholarship, and indeed it is likely to mean that the next class of lawprofs is going to be much thinner and more competitive.  But this is the tacit product of the next class of law students, likely to be smaller and far more select. 

Not necessarily select from the law schools’ point of view, as my bet is that they will take anybody able to pay the freight since student loans may be impossible to find (or afford), but select from the students’ perspective.  Erstwhile law students will think long and hard before saddling themselves with the cost of three years of quasi-education to gain entrée to a declining market for legal talent.

As Malthus, whose harsh theory of population decline applies to so many other things, recognized, nature will not be kind when forced to do the job that we have neglected.  It will cut with a large, blunt blade, keeping the less privileged out of the law while the aristocracy with cash to spend will find law a safe haven.  Law schools could avert this problem, but will they put their supposed purpose ahead of their need to fund their beloved scholarship? 

Jonathon Swift, who thought less highly of Malthus than I do, satirically suggested the solution of eating the babies of the poor to feed Malthus’ wealthy hungry masses.  Who will the law schools eat to work their way out of this situation? 

This might be a good time to help your kid study for organic chemistry.

Perhaps our law school deans will spend less time agonizing over the U.S. News & World Reports rankings and more time considering the monster of too many lawyers they’ve created.  If they do, they will enjoy the deeply-felt appreciation of a grateful nation.