The market is speaking. It may be wrong and foolish, but that never stopped the market from speaking before, and it won’t this time either. And you can’t argue with the market because it only speaks. It doesn’t listen. At The Legal Whiteboard, Bill Henderson is trying to tell us what it’s saying.
This story is fresh off the newswire: “Law firms are no more the preferred destination for fresh law graduates looking for jobs. With outsourcing catching up even in this industry, legal process outsourcing (LPO) companies are now bagging a large number of graduates.” A law professor opines, “There is a rising trend of students opting for LPOs. The nature of work is changing and these places offer good packages and work culture. … [P]romotions also come faster in LPOs.”This isn’t the entire legal market, but it has a virtue that lawyers in the United States don’t have. It’s alive. It’s thriving. It’s where the legal work that used to go to American lawyers now lives. Not all of it, of course, but a lot of it. Not all types of legal work, but the routine, commoditized, crappy, boring stuff that was once the lifeblood of new lawyers.Wonderful news. But the story was written for the Hindu Business Line. The law graduates went to school in India. Why are the LPOs become more attractive jobs for Indian law grads? Probably because (a) LPOs are increasingly focusing on process and technology, engineering out the drudgery work, and (b) process and technology are creating a sustainable competitive advantage within a global industry — and that can support higher salaries.
Bill has an important message in his post, which sadly is hidden behind academic jargon, on the one hand, and inadequately detailed application to practicing lawyers, on the other. So let me play sign language interpreter for a moment. The bulk of work that kept baby lawyers in civil firms busy until they got some decent lawyer chops and learned how to bring in business is being done in Bangalore at $3 an hour or fed into a computer. Where it’s not going is a firm near you, which is why a firm near you has no job for you.
This means that lawyers have to shift out of the routinized, commoditized work that provided them jobs before into practice areas that can’t be shipped off shore. Except they aren’t competent to do so, undermine the market price and fill the courthouse with death and destruction. They do this because they have no place else to turn. They have a ticket. They have debt. They have no other future. And we keep churning them out.
A second post by Bill Henderson notes that LegalZoom has filed for an Initial Public Offering. While real lawyers struggle to pay rent, LZ had revenue of $156 million and turned a profit of $12 million. Plus, it loves all those poor, miserable souls who need legal-type stuff but don’t want to pay a lawyer.
We believe that everyone deserves access to quality legal services so they can benefit from the full protection of the law. Our mission is to be the trusted destination where small businesses and consumers address their important legal needs and to be our customers’ legal partner for life.
A different way to say that would be that they sell forms to people who have no clue what they need or why, using the brilliant method of taking a piece of paper that only needs to be written once and selling it a million times over. One size fits all? Close but no cigar? Not even close? A disaster waiting to happen? So what?
Whether it’s corporations or mom & pops, they are prepared to trade off bespoke legal services for potentially crappy but substantially less expensive, and take their risks. They’ve come to realize that the “bespoke” legal services aren’t all that great, because most lawyers aspire to mediocrity, caring only that the check cleared, and because even if a client tries to do everything as well as possible, the legal system (I mean you, judges) is considered so unreliable that there’s no faith that the righteous will prevail. So if expensive legal services are a crapshoot, and inexpensive legal services are a crapshoot, why pay more?
But we’re criminal defense lawyers here. Neither computers nor lawyers in Bangalore can do what we do, right?
Do the math. Law schools continue to crank out tens of thousands of newly minted, deeply indebted, lawyers every year with no place to go. To the extent that they have any hope of practicing law, the kid who dreamed of one day being an M&A lawyer at Skadden and buying that Ferrari is now standing in the hallway of 100 Centre Street hustling misdemeanors at $100 a pop. He has no choice, if he wants to eat again tonight.
But lawyers aren’t fungible, you say? Of course not, but most clients can’t tell us apart. We all wear similar suits and, despite the cheerleaders, our websites extolling our virtues are essentially the same. You’re an “experience, aggressive and caring” lawyer? Well, isn’t that special. So is the kid next door, who got his licence last week. So is the old man down the hall, who has 30 years of experience. So is the guy who did real estate closings until the business went bust. Etc. We’ve hyped ourselves into oblivion, and the potential client has a choice of 31 flavors that all claim to be vanilla.
On the other hand, he doesn’t really want to waste his money on you. You say you’re worth it, but he can’t tell. You guarantee nothing, because you can’t. The system sucks, as the internet tells us, making the concept of trying one’s best seem like a fools errand. The net result is why bother. If you’re going to lose anyway, save your money.
Within the discussion of what has to change in the nature of American law schools, and the practice of law, is that our society has no need for the tens of thousands of new lawyers being dumped on the market. Not only is it bad for the silly children whose mothers told them that becoming a lawyer assured them reasonable prestige and security, but it’s bad for everyone. The Boulevard can only handle so many lawyers in hotpants.
But Greenfield, you ask, isn’t it true that there is a massive underserved population who is in desperate need of legal services? What about them?
Yes, I respond, but they’re not your market, your potential client. They want and need a lawyer, but they have no money to pay you. Society won’t put together the money to pay you, as that would take needed money away from buying armored vehicles for the police in Peoria to stop terrorists. While it would be very nice of you to serve these poor, needy folks, what will you tell your babies when you have no money to put food in front of them this evening and they’re really, really hungry? The price of cannibalizing ourselves is that a robust legal profession can’t be maintained, and if lawyers have to take jobs as assistant manager at Dairy Queen to survive, they really aren’t lawyers anymore and can’t help much of anyone.
Shutter the law schools. Whether it’s a third, or half, or more, there is no future in the law for most of these students. As we discuss how to fix the systemic problems arising from the structural changes in the law that Bill Henderson talks about, one thing that’s clear is that we have no use for the numbers of full fledged lawyers that are being produced. Yet, the ABA keeps accrediting more law schools, and they do whatever they have to do to fill their seats.
Don’t cry for the empty classrooms and idle lawprofs. They can convert them to carpentry schools. Do you have any idea how hard it is to find a good carpenter? And lawprofs, being the intellectual elite, will quickly learn how to lecture on the theory of hammers and nails. They’ll survive, like cockroaches after nuclear holocaust. But whether lawyers survive is another story.
My gift this mother’s day is to pass along a message. You love your child and want the best for him. Don’t let him become a lawyer. Maybe a cowboy would be better.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Or, become a plumber; they make lawyer wages.
Plumber finishes fixing the leak and hand the lawyer his bill.
“That’s outrageous,” the lawyer exclaims. “Even I don’t charge that much.”
“Neither did I when I was a lawyer,” the plumber responded.
It took me a very long time to find a good plumber. Law clerk? Eventually we had more applicants than I could interview. Some even offered to work for free.
In any case, another thing law professors never bother to mention (shockingly) is the cost of practicing law. Our two lawyer firm spent over $1000 this month in bar dues and malpractice insurance alone. (I guess it’s easy to forget that stuff when you’ve never had to pay for any of it.)
In addition, here in Philadelphia, a simple filing fee is $585. A discovery motion costs $50. An average deposition will be about $800 for the transcript and court reporter.
When a client has $250 in their bank account, and needs thousands of hours in legal services, in addition to all the costs associated with litigation, who is supposed to pick that up?
Oh, I am.
Because if I enter my appearance in the case, I have to do what is necessary for the client or otherwise I’m going to get sued for malpractice.
“My client couldn’t afford to take depositions so we didn’t do any” or “My client couldn’t afford the filing fee so we blew the statute of limitations” isn’t going to cut it. I’m sorry. It won’t. The court would say “You should not have taken on that case.”
The whole “service the poor” thing sounds great. Until you become a real lawyer and you learn what the cost of stuff is. And you learn you’re on the hook for all of it.
So I’m sorry, but Joe Broke Client can keep their $250. I hope a pro bono organization will take on their case.
Also, without law schools, what would law professors do? Become practicing attorneys?
Most of them have never cross-examined a witness, taken a deposition, or empaneled a jury, so how is that realistic? They would have to go work for a law firm to learn how to do those things from a more experienced lawyer, but there are no jobs out there! And as for the jobs that are out there, many of them pay about $40k a year and don’t offer benefits. Besides, no one can pay their student loans on a salary of $40k a year.
This kind of life is far below someone who went to an ivy league law school. So I find it very mean of you to suggest shutting down law schools. Law professors are entitled to their jobs. They went to good law schools and use big words.
Students are willing to take on mounds of debt to hear what law professors have to say, so clearly what they are providing is valuable. Right?
I teach law as well as scrape a practice. For a laugh, read Greenfield’s timeline on Twitter – where a law prof’s got his knickers in a twist because Scott had the temerity to call BS on the legal ed industry.
Read Tom the Temp’s blog, professor.
Then wash your hands.
I’m deeply saddened that it happened on twitter and not here. It’s a terrible waste that others shouldn’t enjoy the “discussion” as much as we did.
Whether because it’s the right thing, or just enlightened self-interest, some lawprofs have no only come to the realization that this isn’t working, but are leading the charge. We (meaning me and these lawprofs) have very different approaches to dealing with the problem, and the discussion about the problem.
I talk the way lawyers talk. They talk the way lawprofs talk. I’m blunt. They’re more polite. I use short words. They use long ones. I say what I mean. They try not to hurt too many feelings in the process. I’m a lawyer. They’re lawprofs.
But this is where the secondary problem happens. Will lawprofs and lawyers talk to each other if lawyers won’t do so in a manner that’s sufficiently genteel that it won’t offend the delicate sensibilities of some lawprofs? The message is that they won’t. Either we acquiesce to their way or there will be no cross-discussion.
One might suspect that given the role lawprofs play in the creation of this problem, and that they are reaping the rewards at the expense of the rest of us, they might not be so cavalier in demaning that we (meaning me) tone down our rhetoric so as not to hurt their feelings. And yet, they still demand that we behave ourselves or they won’t talk to us (meaning me).
I have a problem with this picture.
Once again, SHG is making me cry. Then again, I’m going to school on Uncle Sam’s (a.k.a. your) dime. But… I may have to change my goals. I want to be a lawyer and help defendants, but what’s the point? The courts stack the game against you. Then they laugh at you when the market won’t let you make a living. I’m going to have to consider going back to doing factory maintenance, or maybe go into business for myself as a system engineer for process automation. I consider myself a reasonably bright individual (I DID sore a 170 on the LSAT) but I also know that there are people who are way smarter, way more of a type A personality, and actually have student loans to pay back, who will make better advocates than me even on a PD’s salary. And I had no idea the cost of just doing business as an attorney was so high. Law has priced itself way out of the market. Those filing fees are insane. Sure, I hate working as a factory engineer (a.k.a. grease monkey and occasional system upgrader), and it’s entirely hollow and lacks any kind of higher purpose, and I can barely move anymore from injuries sustained in the military, but it beats all heck out of being unemployed.
I don’t know Bill Henderson personally, but I respect him greatly for his commitment to convincing other law faculty and deans of the crisis of oversupply of lawyers. True, he uses the measured tone of an academic trying to convince other academics. I don’t think it’s a matter of trying to avoid hurting the feelings or other academics; it’s about making an argument using empirical data rather than anecdote in a way that law professors will engage in and (hopefully) take seriously. Law professors tend by training and inclination to be allergic to anecdote.
I have no objection to the angry–prophetic?–tone you choose to adopt here. You say:
“Shutter the law schools. Whether it’s a third, or half, or more, there is no future in the law for most of these students. As we discuss how to fix the systemic problems arising from the structural changes in the law that Bill Henderson talks about, one thing that’s clear is that we have no use for the numbers of full fledged lawyers that are being produced. Yet, the ABA keeps accrediting more law schools, and they do whatever they have to do to fill their seats.”
I agree, we have way too many law schools. I’m convinced that some will close; maybe a lot of them “should” close. But I’m not convinced that every law professor who prefers to radically reform legal education, rather than making emotional demands to “shutter the schools,” is part of the problem. Nobody likes to be called useless, but the law professors I know are more thick-skinned than you suggest. Their feelings aren’t hurt by an aggressive tone; they simply don’t take it seriously. If you really want to find allies among law professors, it might be more effective to meet them halfway.
All that aside, my only real complaint about this post is your comment about Henderson’s message being “hidden behind academic jargon.” What jargon are you talking about? Is it the fact that he relies on statistical evidence?
I do know Bill Henderson, and he speaks like a regular guy, the firefighter he once was before he hit the lottery. His posts today, linked above, are important for practicing lawyers. We need to know this, to read this, to understand this. If Bill the firefighter wrote it, lawyers might read it. If Bill the firefighter wrote it, any lawyer who started the post would finish it. If Bill the firefighter wrote it, any lawyer who read it would get it. Bill the lawprof? Not so much.
It’s long been an argument that the manner of writing within the Academy, where the nuanced interpretation of “his argument was curious” means he’s a blithering idiot, makes it nearly incomprehensible to outsiders. You don’t see it? I do. Others do. Maybe 12 practicing lawyers will read Bill’s post directly at The Legal Whiteboard. A whole lot more will read mine, and I can put Bill’s ideas into language that means something to lawyers. Because they need to hear what Bill is saying.
I’m neither anti-intellectual nor anti-lawprof (except to the extent they play effete prima donnas). Rather, I think they’ve got much to offer, but it needs to spoken in the same language as lawyer if they want the practicing bar to hear them. And we’re all in this together. Both lawprofs and practicing lawyers are part of the same legal ecosystem, and it needs to be “fixed” as a whole, as the pieces aren’t severable.
And so you know, I sent this post off to Bill as soon as I wrote it. He knows my tone. He probably doesn’t like it either, and probably would appreciate it if I stopped poking him about his scholarly tone. But what he says is too important to waste on academics, and practicing lawyers need to read, and understand, Bill Henderson. So be offended all you want by my tone, but if it gets the message across to the right audience in a way they will read and understand it, then I’ve moved Bill’s message forward.
On the other hand, if it remains polite and wrapped in academic jargon and no one reads it, what has been accomplished?
Things like this make me happy that I work in a nice government lawyer job and not have to deal with a private practice until I start thinking about how my job depends upon the federal budget process which makes me cry.
But I do know that anytime someone considering going to law school asks me if they should go, I tell them absolutely not. Do anything but got to law school and become a lawyer. Law school is nothing but a path to misery, stress, and unless you are really fortunate crushing debtloads.
And that is if you are lucky enough to actually find a job you like 🙁