In the first part, District of Colorado Senior Judge John Kane offered his assessment of the state of law schools, and thus new lawyers. Though one might think that young lawyers and law students would appreciate that an Article III judge cared enough about their plight to speak out, instead some castigated Judge Kane for not providing a quick and easy solution to their problems.
In the process, one commenter engaged in an attack that has become sadly and pathetically common among his peers, the attribution of baseless characteristics to diminish the worthiness of his enemy. Not only is it a low-rent logical fallacy, but its pervasive use by baby lawyers suggests that they neither appreciate sound argument nor have the competence to respond with anything better than such puerile crap.
In anticipation of the reactions to Judge Kane’s fix, let’s dispel a few of the stupider retorts. He is hardly an effete Ivy League patrician, born with a silver spoon in his mouth. John Kane had to work for a living, just like the rest of us.
I worked throughout law school tending bar in a blue collar neighborhood, didn’t get help from mommy and daddy and I practiced as a public defender and as a partner in a civil rights, criminal defense practice in the ‘hood with an African American (The only integrated firm in Colorado at that time.).
Regardless of your take on Judge Kane’s fix, baselessly characterizing him as having been born with a silver spoon in his mouth is not only wrong, but reveals that the attacker is a moron. The problems of young lawyers are bad enough without their adding to the disdain by demonstrating foolishness and the inability to respond with anything remotely resembling a rational argument. Yes, there are some federal judges who live in an Ivory Tower. Not Judge Kane. Get over it.
Judge Kane’s initial recognition of the failure of law schools to serve their purpose is significant in that few federal judges either care enough, are aware enough or are bold enough to speak out. Judge Kane did so, and this fact should be appreciated. He has life tenure, kiddies, and he doesn’t need to rub your tummies to meet your approval. Yet he did what few others have done, even though you aren’t the center of his universe. Bear that in mind.
Following his earlier statement, I asked Judge Kane what he thought could be done, and what role the judiciary should play in reforming legal education. This was his response to my questions:
I think judges qua judges need to stay out of individual circumstances because litigation is pending and one can anticipate more to come.No magic bullet in there. Two key points are that legal academics cannot be left to their own devices to fix the problems of law schools, not the least of which is their misguided self-absorbtion with scholarship, and that lawprofs must return be forced to their roots as lawyers rather than scholars.
Essentially this is a matter for the organized bar — if it ever decides to stop acting as a marketing association figuring out more sophistries to avoid the discipline of not having conflicts of interest. The ABA needs to grasp the nettle of law school profligacy and reject the apparent catechism that the mythical free market is the sole source of virtue and freedom.
However formal or informal it might be, the law as a profession is a guild with an obligation to provide pupillage, apprenticeship and journeyman status to its members. Thus, there is a reason for law schools and for bar examinations. There is a dire need for better apprenticeship and by that I mean mentoring whether through employment or monitoring. Law schools cannot be justified solely on the basis of providing a haven for a few scholars and spewing out graduates to support the enterprise. Law firms cannot be justified solely on the basis of being profit centers or business enterprises. I don’t wish to be misunderstood as asserting that making money, even lots of it, is a bad thing; I wish to be understood as insisting that such is not and cannot morally be the raison d’etre of any profession. If law is merely a business and not a means of providing valuable service and benefits to others and to society at large, it is deserving of all the contempt and scorn presently heaped on it and even more.
I have a modest suggestion that all law school alumni associations and all bar associations stop giving money to law schools and instead direct their largesse to assisting law graduates with student loan repayments and otherwise repair the damage being caused by the law school glut. Modesty alone would suggest an end to having buildings and chairs named after the largest contributors.
Asking law profs to resolve the law school problems of hyperenrollment and superfluous courses, of misleading statistics, etc., is quixotic at best. The ABA and the ALSA could, however, insist that all law schools in order to maintain accreditation require all faculty and staff to be admitted to practice in the jurisdiction in which the law school is located, be required to maintain active membership in state and local bar associations and be required to meet all continuing legal education requirements. In sum, rather than fighting the law profs efforts to keep noncompliant lawyers’ noses out of their business, law profs should be required to participate fully in meeting the professional obligations implicit in the functioning and governance of the profession.
There are a few changes that are inevitable and the product of the inexorable forces of evolution: The billable hour is on its way out, so is academic tenure. One hopes that multiple choice, computer graded examinations for both entrance to law schools and the bar are ill-fated. One also hopes that if a law degree is to be a doctorate, that a thesis or dissertation will be required. As for pro bono work, such needs to be a matter of the heart and that, in sum, is what is lacking in the present lamentable circumstances. Without the formation of character, the rest is futile.
While I appreciate Judge Kane’s view that lawyers need to get involved rather than defer to whatever the lawprofs and students hash out, I have serious doubts about the ability of the organized bar to accomplish anything. The ABA has shown neither the guts nor brains to take a firm stand on anything, no less do something to fix a problem it has been integral in creating. To expect a sudden change of heart seems unduly optimistic.
And as Judge Kane notes, the organized bar has become little more than a marketing association for older lawyers, and frankly cares little about the problems of young lawyers. Rather than change for the better, it appears this will only get worse.
The final line of Judge Kane’s view is one that is likely to enrage many young lawyers:
Without the formation of character, the rest is futile.
To some, this will sound like a “let them eat cake” response, as you need, and demand, instant relief from your crushing circumstances, and have no interest whatsoever in archaic platitudes about honor, integrity or character. You want money.
Many will read this sentence and respond that Judge Kane doesn’t get it. I read this line and respond that he very much gets it.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Without the formation of character, the rest is futile.”
That really does sum it up, doesn’t it? Every lawyer that I’ve come to know and respect are all men and women of character. In conversations regarding the profession, the same topics always come up: credibility, service, consistency, reliability, relationships.
Money, either never comes up, or is at the bottom of the list.
Seems like state bars need to start either replacing or supplementing CLE requirements for senior attorneys with pupillage requirements. For instance, attorneys with 15 or more years of experience might be requiring to supervise at least 1000 hours of paid junior associate work each year, with at least 1 hour of face time for every 10-20 hours worked. The requirement could be scaled down or eliminated where there’s actual financial hardship.
(And perhaps attorneys in the 10-15 year range could help me check for typos…)
At least a 1000 hours of paid junior associate work each year? That almost sounds like, ahem, being forced to give them a job. Much as I am happy to mentor, if that was my option, I would rather do CLEs in how to be a special snowflake marketing blogger.
“Stop giving money to law schools”. I don’t know if that will work but it will get their attention.
Evidently bar associations have money but I don’t know how they get it, obviously they don’t earn it.
Lawyers pay dues to bar associations to get a cool certificate, be on a committee (so they can say they are on a committee) and show how involved there are. In fairness, some bar associations do great work. Others not so much. Some are worth the dues. Others not so much.
As for not donating to law schools, getting their attention is half the battle. The other half is sending the right message. It remains unclear whether lawyers know the message or care enough about anything other than their own wallet to take a stand.
Getting their attention is very hard because if they agree there is a problem they will have to figure out how to solve it. Sloth abounds.
Do you see another way the profession could fulfill its obligation to provide pupillage?
I see a stupendously bad idea of forcing every lawyer to take on (at his own expense) a pupil, whether he has any use for one or not, whether the pupil is competent or not, whether he can afford to pay one or not.
I am a strong supporter of voluntary mentoring as a matter of professional and moral obligation, but not a chance in the world this could happen. And it shouldn’t. Mind you, even if they weren’t paid, the cost of being around some entitled idiot whose every thought demands public recognition is more than most of us could stand.
I did say that there could be a financial hardship out. If you actually can’t afford to take on a pupil, you can demonstrate that hardship.
If there are no qualified pupils, you could also make your case to the state bar during your annual reporting period. But, since these are people who have graduated from law school, passed the bar exam, been admitted to practice, and stamped by the state as being minimally qualified, the argument might not fly. You’d probably have to demonstrate some rather extraordinary cause.
On to the issue of not having need of a pupil, I have to throw a question at you that I know you’re fond of asking: What about the clients.
Sure, you don’t have need of a pupil, and you might find their presence annoying, a lot of extra work, and a slight drain on your finances, but clients need for the younger generation of lawyers to receive quality training.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Scott, you’re not going to live forever. Don’t the clients who come after your time deserve good representation? How are they going to get it if not enough young lawyers are being adequately trained?
An alternative to this might be to impose a larger licensing fee on experienced attorneys, and use that to fund apprenticeships for the attorneys who want to take someone on.
Every penny paid for something unneed is a waste of money. Biglaw subsumes (or at least used to) the cost of training their babies. Smalls and solos have no budget to squander on such nonsense. You kids really don’t have the slightest clue how law practices function. The money spent on pupils has to come from somewhere. There is no big pile of unused funds sitting around doing nothing. It comes straight out of the lawyer’s pocket.
As for qualifications, none of you are qualified to do anything. How long it takes before you are qualified has yet to be seen. With the right attitude and effort, you may eventually gain qualifications, but when you start, you are a black hole, making a huge sucking noise.
As for “what about the clients,” how arrogant of you to think you contribute anything of value to a client. You’re not client safe. You’re a client disaster waiting to happen. My clients deserve great representation, and you think you have anything to offer yet? If anything our duty to clients means we never let you near one. The arrogance is astounding.
And yet, we won’t live forever, but that doesn’t mean you get to play entitled little snowflake. I mentor about a half dozen young lawyers at the moment. What they did not do is tell me how I am obligated to serve them, pay them, tolerate their demands and rub their tummies while doing so. They want to learn, and I help them. It’s a courtesy I do for them, not something they do for me.
And no, the fact that someone decided to go to law school doesn’t make them my financial burden. And as bad as law schools are, this is why there is so little sympathy toward entitled baby lawyers. Get a grip. Neither the world nor the law exists to give you a red balloon and a pay check because you came out the other side. And with that entitled attitude, why would anyone tolerate you?
“As for qualifications, none of you are qualified to do anything.”
All the more reason to make sure there are programs to train newly minted attorneys so that they will become qualified and client-safe. Even if law schools were vastly improved, it’s unlikely many (if any) fresh graduates would come out practice ready. They’d still need on the job training.
A rather wise judge once said, “However formal or informal it might be, the law as a profession is a guild with an obligation to provide pupillage, apprenticeship and journeyman status to its members.”
If you agree with this, how do you propose that the profession meet this obligation? Small shops don’t have the money to take on a bunch of young apprentices, and big law firms give them client work on Day 1 with little supervision.
These young lawyers you’re mentoring, what are they doing while waiting to become client-safe?
Nowhere in Judge Kane’s fix does he mention that you’re entitled to be paid, or we’re forced to take on entry level employees regardless of whether there is a need for them. You presume far too much (and far too conveniently).
The duty is to do what I do, to mentor and help young lawyers to become client-safe. I don’t pay them (and, being the nice guy I am, don’t make them pay me). I do help them and guide them. Some are brand new. Some are 5 years out. Some are 10 years out. One lawyer who calls me with questions is 30 years out, and when I have a question, I call lawyers for help too.
Nice try though, to bootstrap this into creating an obligation for every old lawyer to finance a young lawyer. But no. No free rides. And ironically, I imagine that there are a great many young lawyers who wouldn’t take the job even if we were forced to take them in. It would be beneath their dignity and importance. And it wouldn’t pay enough. And they wouldn’t get a corner office. Or work/life balance. Or access to Facebook. Or the right to wear flip flops. Or a BMW. And it doesn’t pay enough.
And oddly, I’m sure you know that’s true.
In none of my comments did I say that young lawyers are entitled to a job or a paycheck. I do think that the practicing bar is responsible for providing for the future integrity of the profession, and that includes training entry level lawyers. The fact that law schools produce about twice as many lawyers as the profession needs is a largely separate issue.
I’m speaking to the issue of making sure there are enough young lawyers in the pipeline who are receiving adequate training and mentorship, not what to do with the surplus of unskilled baby lawyers. I think you’ve made your opinions about the excess noobs pretty clear, but what I’m curious about is whether you think there are enough people getting the sort of training you think the profession needs in order to adequately serve client needs. And if not, what you think ought to be done about it.
I’m also curious as to what you think young lawyers should be doing between graduation and reaching client-safeness.
You never said that young lawyers are entitled to a job and a paycheck? Did I misunderstand this:
As it happens, Dan Hull and I wrote an article for the ABA Journal precisely on point about mentoring. Unfortunately, you will never read it, and so your questions will go unanswered. Bummer. Maybe you should write the ABA Journal and ask why they decided not to publish the article.
I will give you this tidbit. I’ve written and others have written at length about things young lawyers can do, but they are all hard and involve work and effort. You either didn’t read any of it, or it made your head hurt. But asking a simplistic question, as if there is a magic bullet answer to all the baby lawyer problems, is part of the problem. Many in the past three years have found ways to integrate themselves into the legal profession, earn money, learn how to become competent lawyers. What did they do that the others who sat on their butts eating Cheetos didn’t? (Hint: It wasn’t the same thing, but it all involved hard work, persistence and no whining.)
Now you’ve used up a lot of space and still want to be spoon fed a future like a three year old. I think we’ve gone far enough down this embarrassing and unseemly road.
.
You used one of my favorite words there: SLOTH . . .
I also dig the other six of the Seven Deadly Sins too, meaning I dig to use them to make my point: GREED, HUBRIS, ENVY, GLUTTONY, LUST, and WRATH . . .
And I will further contend that the problems/issues highlighted by this interesting post can be traced back to most, if not all, of these “sins”, instantiated in one form or another . . .
.
The bulk of young attorneys finding ways into the profession, earning money, and learning to be competent are working as lawyers, doing things like representing clients, a prospect you seem to find horrifying.
I do indeed find it horrifying. Unless they have a mentor.
Sloth is okay, but it’s no hubris.
.
I knew Hubris; Hubris was a friend of mine. And you, sir, are no Hubris . . .
Wrath, he too I have made his acquaintance. In fact, Wrath I still know quite well and, perhaps, you are equal to Wrath; but certainly not in the same league as Hubris . . .
.
When it comes to hubris, I bow to your superior acquaintance. Wrath, not so much.
I think we have to take into consideration, however, one more thing that should be on that list, and probably most lawyers of character would agree that it no longer is: Institutions.
Institutions in the legal profession are easy to get sentimental about. Of course we know that so many of them — law firms, government legal offices, the judiciary, and even many vaunted public interest law outfits — have never been as idealistic, or principled at least, as they would have us believe.
But for all sorts of reasons, it seems fair to say that most are far worse in that respect than they were a generation ago. And what, after all, builds these aspects of character for people who otherwise would have nothing in common besides a law degree and a license?