In my effort to restrain the number of posts on law school issues, I combine two otherwise largely unrelated posts because I’ve come up with a somewhat cute title that makes them seem almost connected.
At Inside the Law School Scam, Paul Campos channels Orwell by addressing the delicate nature of intellectual discourse.
One thing that has displeased a number of my colleagues throughout the legal academy is what they consider the excessively shrill tone of some of my posts, which have lacked that delicacy and circumspection that marks a well-bred gentleman’s discourse, whenever he engages in the unpleasant task of suggesting that all might not be for the best in this the best of all possible worlds.This recalls the outrage, sheer utter disgust, that followed Marco Randazza’s calling the scholarhood a “circle jerk.”
Law in general and law school in particular is already too full of fake politeness, fear-induced groveling, craven appeasement of dubious authority figures, unappetizing obsessions with hierarchical status, and other forms of soul-crushing inauthenticity. Like minor aristocrats surrounded by court flatterers, we’ve lost sight of the deep anger — and is it not a just anger? — hidden behind the faces of those who, for the moment, feel they must still curry our favor.
Randazza was one of the original participants in the discussion about Danielle Citron’s Cyber Civil Rights, the online symposium that brought about some great, and some less than great, discussion on her controversial proposition that by turning cyberbullying into a sexist thing, it would justify suppression of free speech and anonymity. Yet Randazza was excluded as a “symposiast”. Worse still, when a crack developed in the closed circle of “open-source academics” and Randazza had a chance to get a word in, he was either ignored or berated by other lawprofs.
Now I grant you that Marco is vulgar. Me too, on occasion, but not usually as vulgar as Marco. It wasn’t his ideas that the Academy found so off-putting, though they weren’t too thrilled with them either, but his manner of expression.
I’ve mentioned, perhaps a hundred times, how the nuanced language of lawprofs, their dulcet tones of approval or disapproval, are unrecognizable to me. It’s some mysterious language, long words strung together in seemingly random ways that conveyed a message so subtle that no matter how many times I read it, I still had no idea what they were trying to say. Yet they understood perfectly.
And when my words were used to express a thought, or characterize theirs, I was laughed at by the scholars who considered me a neanderthal, ignorant and unworthy of even a meager glass of sherry.
Realizing that the same guys who thought so poorly of me consider Campos, ScamProf as he’s called, little more than a “showboat charlatan,” perhaps I wasn’t merely too ignorant to appreciate the nuance of the Academy. Maybe the problem was that I don’t speak the language of “fake politeness, fear-induced groveling, craven appeasement of dubious authority figures, unappetizing obsessions with hierarchical status, and other forms of soul-crushing inauthenticity?” I feel better now.
And in a closely related post, provided you squint hard, Doug Berman inquires at Law School Innovation how the “solution” to the supply and demand disparity for new lawyers is better cured.
Though I think the law school demand side is a very important component of this story, the question in the title of this post is meant to urge discussion of the law school supply side. In particular, I would like to hear view from anyone inside or outside the law school marketplace as to whether law schools ought to be, in light of modern labor realities, significantly reduce the sizes of their graduating classes either by letting in many fewer students or failing out many more students before these students accumulate huge law school debts.
While Doug alerts us that he has an “innovative solution” which he intends to reveal after the rest of us have made fools of ourselves by answering his question, I will play my part and offer my two cents.
Both. But for different reasons. Reducing the size of law school classes to reduce the supply of lawyers in a society that can no longer absorb them may be “dream crushing” to some, but beats being “debt crushing” to many, as well as critical to maintaining a society that doesn’t have a lawyer per capita. Too many lawyers, un- and underemployed, as well as underutilized, are the devil’s playground. Since it’s not about the dreams of wannabe lawyers, but the harm we wreak on society when we have nothing to keep our hands occupied day after day, the need to reduce the butts in seats is manifest.
And yet, even those who score well enough on the LSATs and have plenty of As on their transcripts may not prove to have the chops to be lawyers. When I went to law school, the dean would give that great speech where he told us to look to our right, look to our left, that one of us would not be graduating. Not every kid who gets into law school has the capacity to be a lawyer. Not every student will prove client safe.
We, meaning the public as well as more experienced lawyers, expect law schools to vet their students, to thin the herd, so that people who would make extraordinary interior designers but awful lawyers don’t get spit out the other end. My understanding, sadly, is that as long as they pay tuition, never a problem as long as student debt can be assumed, they get to remain in law school.
Part of the obligation of law schools, and law profs, is to make sure that the students from whom they take money, and the students to whom they given the imprimatur of competency, has the ability to one day make a competent lawyer. Not everyone does. And yet they get their degree just like everyone else in their class.
Do your job. Thin the herd. Do it for the children. Do it for everyone.
Agreed.
On the flipside, consider that with all the un- and underemployment, some lenders might not consider loaning somebody thousands of dollars to get a law degree from a third-tier school to be a good investment. Perhaps making student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy would make lenders think twice. This would actually do a lot to cut the supply and achieve some public policy goals as well.
What’s your thought on teaching all high school students some law? I got some business law courses – they’ve come in handy from time to time. I’ve actually used algebra and calculus a little, but I suspect that’s pretty rare. A few basic things like sign nothing you haven’t read and understood and never talk to the cops maybe?
My problem is that T3 law schools are the ones producing working lawyers rather than Biglaw wannabes, and these are the people who really need the loans, but who will end up becoming great lawyers. Hate to lose the ones who really want to be lawyers because of the ones who think it’s all about fabulous wealth and prestige.
A little knowledge is dangerous. So is a gun in the hands of chidlren. But teaching them how to invoke rights isn’t a law course, but something every American should know.
State-supported law schools can do the same thing, and at a lower cost to the student. In fact, with a handful of exceptions, this is the exact purpose of state-funded law schools.
The problem I have is with the T3 law schools that are as expensive to attend as Harvard. Cutting the student loan supply off might force them to lower their tuition (granted, many would close up shop.)
The other thing nobody wants to mention is that lawyers are very inefficiently distributed. I can understand all the corporate lawyers being in NYC, but why does NYC need more criminal defense lawyers per capita than a city of 100,000 with a crime problem? Maybe the government could consider student loan breaks for lawyers who locate their practice in a smaller market, similar to what they do for doctors. Having a more efficient distribution of lawyers could actually help.
I agree. But is it something America’s government, or even the majority of its people, wants the public schools to teach? Channeling more Mencken:
Most people want security in this world, not liberty. ~H.L. Mencken, Minority Report, 1956
“Government, in its very essence, is opposed to all increase in knowledge. Its tendency is always towards permanence and against change … [T]he progress of humanity, far from being the result of government, has been made entirely without its aid and in the face if its constant and bitter opposition.”
H.L. Mencken
but do not think me anti-American so to say, for
“The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair. “
H.L. Mencken
Not so easy to get into those state law schools, but perhap. As for structural unemployment of lawyers, that’s a great idea, though I expect that a bunch don’t really want to go to Alaska and practice crim law, no matter what the incentive. Not that it’s not a good idea otherwise.
Of course, there’s nothing stopping young unemployed lawyers now from moving to a place where their services are needed, but they much prefer to sit on a couch in their mommy’s basement and whine about it.
If the states did find that they had an undersupply of lawyers, they could have some of the “directional” state schools open up law schools that were easier to get into.
There are some logistical problems involved with opening a practice in a smaller town — office space isn’t so readily available (which seems strange given the number of boarded-up storefronts you see in some of them…) But, yeah, there’s nothing stopping them now. The basic problem is that you have a lot of young lawyers who would die if they didn’t live in a major metro area, and many of them are the same ones who might benefit from moving out of the city.
In any case, I’m not sure the program for doctors who practice in rural areas has really increased the number of doctors there, but then jobs are still relatively plentiful for doctors.
Bear in mind, it’s not that most of the un- and under- set are desperate to be lawyers; they just want to live large in the city.
Hence, they live in the city and try to convince people to pay them to teach marketing skills.
I never understood the people who went to law school and didn’t want to practice law.
Neither do I. And I really can’t understand it when the bottom has fallen out of the market, and yet they still come.
I think your quite correct. Just because one can be a lawyer doesn’t mean one should. I’m the case in point.
I really do fear that the large influx of poor, debt-ridden attorneys is going to turn into a terrible problem for potential clients. When I practiced, albeit for a very short time, it grated me that attorneys would fight over the smallest things and over a very, relatively small, amount of money. I just don’t have it in me to overbill and fight tooth and nail over five thousand dollars. BUT lots of other folks do.