• Home
  • News
  • NYT: It’s Time to Rethink the Legal Profession

Law Practice Management

NYT: It’s Time to Rethink the Legal Profession

Posted Apr 2, 2009 5:40 AM CST
By Molly McDonough

In an opinion piece published today, the New York Times leaves little doubt that there are changes afoot in the legal profession. Massive, paradigm-shifting changes.

Amid bursts of unprecedented layoffs and firm closures, young associates are finding themselves with six-figure student loan debt and no source of income.

But the New York Times sees a possible silver lining.

Those left stranded and those still standing may spur the drawing of "blueprints for the 21st century."

So what's going to change?

• Compensation. The out-of-whack pay chasm in which BigLaw lawyers make $160,000 to start while state and local prosecutors start in the mid-to-upper $40,000s is likely to change, with high salaries being reined in. "One industry-watcher says it could fall as low as $100,000. And fewer firms will feel the need to pay the top salary," the Times notes.

• Tuition. Between 1990 and 2003, private law school educations costs rose at nearly three times the rate of consumer prices, with the average graduate now leaving with more than $80,000 in debt. Expect a correction on tuition and more law schools to follow Northwestern University's two-year law school model.

• Curriculum. There may also be pressure on law schools, because of the economic conditions, to retool "sometimes-aimless second and third years" of courses to be more practical in nature, with more emphasis on going into nonlegal careers.

Comments

1.

James
Apr 2, 2009 7:23 AM CST

(1) The 2 year model is a joke at Northwestern.  All they’re doing is forcing the students to take two summer semesters of class thereby forgoing opportunities to work and gain practical experience, something almost every lawyer agrees we need more of not less.  Way to be on the cutting edge.  Btw, Northwestern’s decision to implement this program has nothing to do with saving people tuition money as NW’s tuition is among the highest.

(2)Ah yes… let’s have salary parity between big firm private practice and the government.  Every time the economy gets bad people start talking about this populist crap.  There will NEVER be salary parity and it’s a stupid thing to work for.  The market has always dictated the salaries of big firm associates and right now the market sucks so firms are cutting costs.  (instead of cutting associates they should just be cutting salaries and corresponding hours but that’s another argument altogether). 

(3)  Maybe schools shouldn’t accept so many students in the first place.  Maybe a good number of Tier 4 schools should close their doors altogether.  The time to tell people that they shouldn’t be lawyers isn’t when they’re second or third year students, but right after they apply to a school with a 2.7 GPA and a 145 on the LSAT.  If this sounds like your school’s typical candidate, you’re running a diploma mill not a law school and you should be ashamed of yourself.  And yes please respond with the oft cited “diversity in the legal profession justifies crappy schools so minorities and ‘non-traditional students’ (whatever that means) have a place to go.”  That excuse is a cop out and given that affirmative action and (gasp) an ever increasing number of qualified minority applicants are getting into the top schools anyways. Perhaps we should look at Tier 4 law schools as the new “Plessyesque” “seperate but not quite equal” model.

Flag this comment

2.

P. Bryson
Apr 2, 2009 7:33 AM CST

There are a Tier 1 and Tier 4 law school in my city. Guess which one turns out decent lawyer prospects and which one turns out a bunch of policy hacks. I see that there is a great divide between the idea that previous, non-legal experience is vital and the idea that Tier 4 schools should close. The Tier 4 schools—with an emphasis on practice, access for first-generation professionals, and their provision of part-time programs—put out many valuable graduates. Maybe part of the “paradigm shift” (which will turn out to be a load of nonsense once the market starts ticking back up) should be for the top schools and firms to recognize the things the lower tier institutions are getting right.

Flag this comment

3.

B. McLeod
Apr 2, 2009 7:34 AM CST

So far, most of the large firms are carrying on like a herd of lemmings, continuing to woodenly resist the obviously neccessary reductions in “associate” pay.  The Times may be giving managing partners credit for more sense than they actually have (or ever will have).  It would be a simple matter to test where the real “market” is by requiring applicants to competitively bid aceptable salary.  Do that, and there will be parity between the firms and government posts.

As far as law school curriculum changes, I disagree with the notion that schools should try to teach students in preparation for non-legal careers.  That would be on a plane with simply rechartering as “business” schools, with some law-oriented classes.  What law schools should do instead is increase the focus on practical courses, clinics and internships in the second and third years, so that students will be better positioned to enter practice upon graduation, as solo practitioners if need be.

Flag this comment

4.

Jim Boone
Apr 2, 2009 8:56 AM CST

The Times didn’t really offer much insight from inside the firms to confirm the opinion expressed here - one unnamed “industry watcher” does not exactly mean a paradigm shift.  Of course, if every law blog in the country picks the story up and treats it like gospel, then it might seem more validated. 

Good work, ABA Journal. Using an opinion piece by someone who gave up the law to write books about politics (the Daley bio) and Google as a resource, rather than doing your own reporting.

Finally, as someone on another common ABA source (ATL) commented, should anyone be looking to the NY Times to critique business models at this point?  Just because its one of the few dailies left not in bankruptcy doesn’t really make it an economic powerhouse.

Flag this comment

5.

Bjorn T.
Apr 2, 2009 8:57 AM CST

Cheers to James.  First worthwhile comment I’ve read here in ages.

Flag this comment

6.

James
Apr 2, 2009 9:09 AM CST

I’m not saying that a Tier 4 school is incapable of turning out “decent lawyer prospects,” however I would question whether those prospects actually were forced to go to a Tier 4 school in the first place.  These places lure in students with scholarships as long as they’re in the top 20 percent.  That means that they recind nearly 80% of the scholarships.

Flag this comment

7.

Iolanthe
Apr 2, 2009 9:33 AM CST

For better or worse, much legal work can be done at a fraction of the cost of a licensed attorney by individuals using tools provided by services like NOLO Press or by paralegals or legal document assistants. Rather than defensively heaping scorn upon these cost-effective solutions, the modern law profession needs to come to grips with their existence, either by ceding the routine legal services territory to them or by lowering prices to match them, because they are here to stay. Today’s market will not bear the rapacious prices billed by attorneys for routine legal services.

Flag this comment

8.

James
Apr 2, 2009 11:31 AM CST

Lolanthe-

YES YES YES.  We cannot bill the same hourly rate for document preparation that we can for actual legal research.  We can’t bill the same rate for copying that we do for trial time.  I don’t necessarily think that hourly billing needs to be done away with, but we need to do a better job as a profession demonstrating value.  Then again if your clients are happy than you’re doing something right.  Change your practice when they’re not.

Flag this comment

9.

J.D.
Apr 2, 2009 11:41 AM CST

WHAT WONDERFUL ADVICE… coming from a failing newspaper that fewer and fewer people read every day.

Whatever the NYT’s recommends, people should do the opposite.

Flag this comment

10.

Steve
Apr 2, 2009 11:58 AM CST

Compensation:  Nobody expects absolute parity.  But paying a handful of grads 4 times as much doesn’t make financial sense.  They aren’t 4 times smarter, 4 times more competent, or 4 times more productive.  What they bring is prestige—something for which fewer clients will pay a large premium.  And those that DO pay top dollar want experienced and accomplished attorneys, not inexperienced newbies.

Tuition:  A big problem has been that all the moves for “affordability” have been aimed at giving loans, forgiving loans, etc.  Why not just lower the price?  There was no increase in costs to justify the tuition increases of the past 10-15 years in higher education.  I see 3 answers 1) fixed tuition for the duration of a student’s time in law school so they don’t get the old bait and switch.  and 2)  the LSAC or US News reporting the recent tuition increases as a column in their reports so prospective students know which school will be more likely to gouge them (and to shame those schools that have the larger increases), and finally 3)  changing the ABA standards to no longer mandate wastes of money like large printed libraries where 95% of the books go untouched for decades, etc.

Curriculum:  I find the hatred of 3rd and 4th tier schools amusing.  Are grads from 3rd and 4th tier schools committing malpractice at a higher rate?  Diploma mill or not, they pass the bar exam.  (And only a handful of T3/T4 schools have embarassingly low bar passage rates.)  The concept of Tiers is just self-perpetuating because the primary criteria to assign the tier is reputation.  i.e.  you could transplant Harvard’s faculty to another school and change their admissions standards and it would be a decade before that school was called a T1.
Also, not every student who went to a T3 or T4 did so because they weren’t “good enough” for a T1 or T2.  Some do it to be able to do night classes.  Some do it to avoid moving their spouse and child to another city or state.  And yes, some do it because they are lured in by one of those evaporating scholarships. 
Having multiple law schools does make sense to keep competition in the market, as wells as choices and options available no matter where someone lives.  What does need to change is total 1L admissions.  I predict the ABA’s new standard for bar passage rate will produce that good side-effect.  (And further undermine the permament caste system that currently exists.)

Flag this comment

11.

associate
Apr 2, 2009 12:14 PM CST

Steve, “They’re not 4 times more productive.”

Um, wrong.  That’s exactly why the market dictates that they’re paid 4x as much.


If you guys just can’t stand successful people, just move to a socialist country.  Except for the ruling class, everyone there is just as unsuccessful as you are.  Enjoy.

Flag this comment

12.

Steve
Apr 2, 2009 12:56 PM CST

to #11
“Um, wrong.  That’s exactly why the market dictates that they’re paid 4x as much”

Gee, then how do you explain all the news about the pay for starting associates at BigLaw dropping, new hires being delayed, and the layoffs all over BigLaw?   

It’s simple math.  And BigLaw realized the math doesn’t work as-is.

If these $160K new hires at BigLaw were 4x as productive as their $40K counterparts, they wouldn’t be deferred, laid off, or seeing their pay cut.

You want to lecture me on the “market”—well I think the “market” is speaking loud and clear with the layoffs and pay cuts for some high earners.

Flag this comment

13.

James
Apr 2, 2009 1:02 PM CST

It’s not a hatred ot T4 schools rather the fact that there are too many law schools.  Many T4 schools are not even associated with a university.  They charge (in many instances) twice the tuition and deliver less than half the employment prospects upon graduation.  The bar passage rates are poor (although I know a lot of schools will teach a bar bri-like class during law school to keep their numbers higher).  These schools take huge tuition payments form an oversized class of first years (I’ve even heard of instances where they don’t have enough desks for all the students they accept).  They they proceed to flunk out a certain % after the first year and another certain % after the second year.  These students are then often anywhere from $30,000 to $60,000 in debt or more with NO degree.  The remaining class is more likely to pass the bar and keep the passage rate at a relatively acceptable level.
The lucky students do well their first year and transfer out, although they’re often treated poorly at their new school when law firms state that they don’t want to interview transfer students.

As far as malpractice, I’m not sure, who cares as its not really the issue.  Neither is passing the bar exam.  Just because I could buy the bar bri books online, study for the bar exam on weekends, and pass it doesn’t mean I should be a laywer. 

Also I don’t really believe your reasons why people would attend an inferior school…
(1) night school- many top tier schools have it now. 
(2)Moving with the fam-  Most major cities have multiple law schools.  If it’s really a dream than make a sacrafice.  I can’t think of a single Tier 4 law school that sits in a city that isn’t serviced by T1 or T2 school
(3)- Scholarships, sadly this does entrap people… it shouldn’t though.

Flag this comment

14.

James
Apr 2, 2009 1:04 PM CST

Allow me to rephrase… it’s a realization that there are too many law schools along with a hatred of a certain type of business model for certain law schools.  Not all T3 T4 schools fall into it, but the schools that do are T3 / T4.

Flag this comment

15.

sly
Apr 2, 2009 1:11 PM CST

#13 and #14, I agree with you. There are too many law schools and this is one problem. The debt of your average law student and cost of law school education is the second issue. We have young partners in our firm who are still paying law school loans 12-15 years out.

Flag this comment

16.

JadeFS
Apr 2, 2009 1:33 PM CST

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/jim_jones_hildebrandt_presentation.php#more

Prestige has always been a house of card proped up by mystique from information assymetry.  It is one’s hubris to based self-worth and social status on rankings and test scores.  The market is now rapidly readjusting the skewed valuation of the cost of legal services.  One day in the near future, someone will produce and post free webcasted video lectures of the entire law school curriculum taught by the foremost recognized experts (Sunstein, Chemerinsky, Supreme Court Justices and etc.) on the web and remove restrictions as to the eligibility of taking the bar.  Most legal research and basic legal services will be simplied by new software and databases to be as simple as filling out electronic forms.  What will you do then?  Evolve and thrive by adapting to provide more added value?  Or decline and perish by resorting to protectionism, limiting competition and mass hysteria?  Legal services will become accounting with letters instead of numbers.

Flag this comment

17.

Steve
Apr 2, 2009 1:39 PM CST

to #14

Thank you for that clarification.
Many of these T4 ‘cash cows’ have used deceptive employment/salary stats to trick applicants.  And that, I believe, is the real problem that needs to be addressed.

I don’t read claims that the T3/T4 graduates are woefully inadequate or incompetent compared to T1/T2 graduates.  That was my reason for bringing up the issue of bar passage and malpractice claims.  (Although T1/T2 grads would have us believe that superiority lasts their entire career.  There are other fields like science and engineering which aren’t quite so caste-driven and rely more on “what have you done lately?”)

Yes, some T4 schools do have very low bar passage rates, but at least those stats can’t be manipulated by those schools.  And the new ABA law school standards will hopefully lead to changes with respect to those schools.

So the real problem isn’t that T3/T4 graduates aren’t capable fo being lawyers, it’s that the reality is that in the real world of the Tiers, they aren’t nearly as capable of getting hired. (or paying off their debt)  There is no getting around that.

Getting more accurate information into the hands of prospective students so they will bypass an overpriced degree that can’t pay for itself is something I can get behind.

I would advise any prospective student to bypass any T4 and most T3 law schools unless money was no object or they had a guaranteed job in a family firm waiting.  But I still wouldn’t say that the ABA should just “shut them all down”.  If the lower Tiers had a lower price to match the lower income potential, they could still serve a niche.

Flag this comment

18.

J
Apr 2, 2009 7:51 PM CST

Regardless of what your diploma says, there will always be someone else that can do your job better than you and cheaper than you.  Young lawyers tend to forget that concept.

Flag this comment

19.

G
Apr 2, 2009 11:54 PM CST

Too many lawyers. E.G., NJ has over 81,000 lawyers for just over 8 million people.  Come on, 1:100??  No way you can make it as a solo these days.  Law school needs to be like medical school.  There should be mandatory residency after the fact.  It could be legal services, just like public hospitals.  You actually have to go in and try cases start to finish.  Say for 5 years.  Its a joke that I can practice right after passing the bar, even after a trial court clerkship.  To think that law school as it is could train a student to be a solo in 3 years is a joke.  Lawyers need to be trained, and it takes time, lots of it.  Law school isn’t getting it done; nor do I think it cares to.  Neither is Big Law.  There needs to be some good ol’ fashioned training and mentoring brought back into the system.  It just doesn’t exist anymore.

Flag this comment

20.

Andrea Pace
Apr 3, 2009 5:28 AM CST

I agree wholeheartedly with 19.  I work in public interest and I am essentially finding my own way every day.  A large scale post-graduation training program should be implemented.  Or, at the very least, there should be an intensive rotation schedule similar to 4th year medical students.

As for loans, I am on a 25-year repayment plan and I have to pay over 30% of my gross income to my loan companies.  The cost of law school presumes a firm salary that is not a goal or a reality for many students.  Even though I like my job, I honestly wish I never became a lawyer.

Flag this comment

21.

A.T.
Apr 3, 2009 5:54 AM CST

To comment 1(3).  I am a 1L at a tier 4 school.  I had a very high GPA (from a top ‘east-coast’ school) and LSAT—certainly enough to go to a “Tier 1” school.  I choose to go to a smaller, less well known school for economic and personal reasons.  Your assertion that such schools are diploma mills and the implication that they lack academic rigor is insulting and misguided.  It is a shame that the legal profession places such an emphasis on the name of a school rather than evaluating the underlying student.

Flag this comment

22.

Bob
Apr 3, 2009 5:56 AM CST

Mid to upper 40s for local prosecutors starting pay?  I wish.

Flag this comment

23.

SM
Apr 3, 2009 6:00 AM CST

James, I go to a Tier 4 law school.  I live in a huge city with another law school.  I am sure you have heard of it, but I prefer not to say where I live.  Anyway, I ONLY applied to the school I go to because they offer an evening program.  I have a house, a job, and a husband.  I couldn’t quit my job and I certainly couldn’t just up and move.  YES - the reasons Steve mentioned are exactly why some students choose Tier 4 schools.  I had excellent grades and a good LSAT score.  I choose the school that could offer me what I needed (as did many in my class, we have discussed this very thing).  I am glad I did.  I have smaller classes than I would at the other school, the staff and factulty are great.  We have a 96% pass rate on the bar (higher than the rest of the state - state average is 88%).  This school allowed me to get a very good education and participate in any extra curricular activity I wanted.  It has been great.  I had no idea what Tiers were when I started school, and I don’t really care now.  I think they are fairly irrelevant, at least in my experience.

Flag this comment

24.

DEsq
Apr 3, 2009 6:04 AM CST

Actually James, if you have a Juris Doctor from an ABA accredited law school (regardless of tier) and you PASS the bar exam, the state that administered said exam will extend the privilege of obtaining a license to practice law to you, which in circles where logic matters, means you should be a lawyer.  Do try and follow along.

Flag this comment

25.

DEsq
Apr 3, 2009 6:09 AM CST

Response to comment (21) by A.T.
I would go a step farther and say it is also a shame that someone like James is (allegedly) in our profession.

Healthy skepticism is one thing, but the tirade James unleashed is equal parts feckless and useless.  But hey, at every party there’s the “everything sucks except what I say” guy who is immediately recognized by the “coincidental” lack of people going out of their way to interact with him.

Flag this comment

26.

rw
Apr 3, 2009 6:24 AM CST

Great comments James. I wonder why anyone would take NYT seriously on any economic issues. Haven’t they botched up their own business?

Flag this comment

27.

Steve
Apr 3, 2009 6:28 AM CST

“I choose to go to a smaller, less well known school for economic and personal reasons.  Your assertion that such schools are diploma mills and the implication that they lack academic rigor is insulting and misguided.  It is a shame that the legal profession places such an emphasis on the name of a school rather than evaluating the underlying student.”

#21 - You will find that the oppotunities open to you going to a 4T will be considerably different than a 1T no matter how capable or how long you’ve been practicing law.  You’ve chosen a credentials-driven profession and the school ranking is near the top of the credential list.  You have already foreclosed yourself from numerous jobs.  They won’t even let you in the door.  Most of the comments on this thread are true once you peel back the biased opinion.  Do yourself a big favor.  Do really well and transfer to a better school.  It will cost you less money in the long run.  I’ve seen people do it and they’ve left full scholarships to pay full tuiition at a better school.  You know what?  They said it was the best thing they ever did.  Best of luck in your career.

Flag this comment

28.

writernd
Apr 3, 2009 6:33 AM CST

Undergrad GPA and LSAT scores demonstrate how one does on tests, not how one will practice law or the extent of one’s capabilities to practice law. It is a tool law schools use b/c they need something to differentiate and choose students—but it is a mistake to lump every lower GPA/LSAT scorer into a category of those who should not be able to get law degrees and practice law.

Flag this comment

29.

P. Bryson
Apr 3, 2009 6:37 AM CST

@ 19; With a more than 90% settlement rate for litigation, I think it is unreasonable to expect graduates to try a case from start to finish within their first 5 years. With that caveat, and with the understanding that not all lawyers are (or should be)  litigators, I agree with you that mentorship needs to make a big comeback. My local bar association is trying, but the program doesn’t have the participation it should.

@23, I think we go to the same school. I’m finishing my 3E year, and I have to tell you that I’ve had opportunities at our low-ranked institution that my friends up High street can only wish for..

Flag this comment

30.

S.L.
Apr 3, 2009 6:58 AM CST

A few comments:  As a graduate of a Tier 4 school, I have many wonderful things to say about my experiences in law school and the education I received.  Sure, I had to start at a small, no name firm making so little money I couldn’t afford my student loan payments but much hard work in the office, cultivating my reputation and networking, I am now working at a 70 attorney firm to which I was recruited after being in practice for only 2 years.  The internship experiences and small classes I had at a Tier 4 school made all this possible for me. 

As further comment, I was not a high LSAT acheiver and this kept me on waiting lists at tier 1 and 2 schools, despite my high undergraduate GPA, subsequent work experience and post-graduate education.  Yet, despite the low LSAT score, I find myself succeeding in the practice of law.  Simply put, LSAT has little bearing on your ability to practice law and should not be so heavily relied upon.

Flag this comment

31.

Tier3SuperStar
Apr 3, 2009 7:09 AM CST

I worked full-time to finance my college education, and despite an above-average LSAT score, my 2.7 GPA kept me from getting into what the elite consider the “elite schools.”  I am now a named partner of a small firm, not a reject from a big-firm, who was passed over for partner after 7 years of torture.  I paid $370,000 in taxes for 2008, on income of close to a million dollars.  My clients don’t ask where I went to school; they don’t need that false reassurance to know they are in good hands.  So, get rid of the Tier 4 schools?  Give me a break.  I say get rid of the ranking system.  You never know what you are getting in a lawyer until they get behind the desk or in front of a jury.

Flag this comment

32.

Joseph
Apr 3, 2009 7:21 AM CST

I’m so sick of Tier 1 law students speaking negatively about Tier 4 law schools. 

First of all, you are talking about one ranking source: U.S. News & World Report.  I think it’s embarrassing that we, as a profession, allow one media source to dictate to us which schools are the best. 

The entire ranking criteria is based on a self-perpetuating cycle.  Yale is number one because Yale has always been number one.  That’s ridiculous. 

I’ve been a law student a Tier 4 and Tier 1 law school.  The Tier 4 was more difficult and more demanding by far.  Last year, it had the highest bar passage rate in the state - far surpassing several Tier 1s in the state. 

The only real difference I can see between my Tier 1 and Tier 4 law school experience is that the Tier 1 is filled with children of privilege who aren’t expected to be prepared for class.

There is no discernible difference between the quality of the professors, and roughly 80% of the students in any given class are busy checking their email and IMing their friends.

So T1s, when you talk about how law schools and firms need to change, perhaps you should take a long, hard look at yourself before you place the blame on T4s.

Flag this comment

33.

MLB
Apr 3, 2009 7:22 AM CST

The best thing for the profession would be an apprenticeship system. School, plus on the job at the same time.  Less costly, less loans, etc.

Flag this comment

34.

lynn
Apr 3, 2009 7:25 AM CST

I always found it a little strange that law school tuition is SO high. How is it that in England or Canada the tuition is so much lower.  Apart from the use of westlaw/lexis there is NO equipment other than a book, a piece of paper and a pen, and a teacher necessary to learn law.  there is no fancy, expensive equipment.  I hardly think that the salaries of law professors should be more than professors of other subjects.  If schools lowered tuition they would certainly have more people going into public interest jobs. Of course all of this has been said and every law school student and many lawyers have read Planet Law School. I went to a former T1 now T2, I got a decent enough education, nothing spectacular in terms of teachers, passed the bar, have a decent salary as a trial lawyer in a medium sized firm. I lived very frugally at law school, but 6 yrs out I am still paying the loan off.

Flag this comment

35.

M.M.
Apr 3, 2009 7:33 AM CST

I am currently at a tier 4 school and find the comments about tier 4 schools insulting and stereotypical of graduates from a higher ranked law schools who are continuously trying to justify their ridiculous investment.  I went to a tier 4 school because it was close to home and because it had in-state tuition - unlike some of the other posts have suggested, moving is not just a sacrifice, it’s also a financial decision. I was able to get into tier 1 and 2 schools but I would have had to take out enormous loans. At the tier 4 school I attend I have a graduate assistantship which covers the entirety of my tuition; even without the assistantship, I would have been able to carry the costs of tuition out of pocket. I will have absolutely no debt when I graduate from law school in May. When I graduate I will be able to take a job I enjoy and am passionate about - I will not have to be a research lackey at some big firm because I have over $100K in debt.

As an aside, as further proof that us lowly beings at tier 4 institutions are desireable candidates who are capable of getting hired, I have externed for a federal judge and beat out several tier one candidates in the interviewing process to land the job. I was more than capable of performing the work that needed to be done.

Flag this comment

36.

hadley V. Baxendale
Apr 3, 2009 7:34 AM CST

The attitude that only those from top schools with top grades and scores will succeed at the practice of law is why so many fail at the practice of law.  Success in school, like success at any challenging endeavor, does indicate ability and intelligence.  But at the top/top range, you have those who would be good law professors, not necessarily good lawyers.

Flag this comment

37.

TD
Apr 3, 2009 7:49 AM CST

James,

The Tier-4 comment is insulting and ignorant. There are a variety of reasons a person would choose a particular school. Prestige is but one of them. I’m currently a 2L at a Tier 4 school, and in addition to attending weekend and evening classes, I manage to hold a significant full-time position that I was absolutely not willing to give up to attend school full-time. I am compensated very well, and supplementing my experience with a JD will expand my potential for advancement here. That said, I got a 174 on my LSAT and had a good GPA from a top 25 undergrad university. I chose to attend the tier 4 school because they offered me a free education, flexibility in scheduling and a means to the desired end. I have friends who graduated from top five law schools. Do you know what? We learned the exact same material. I just get to enjoy every penny of my salary while they are repaying significant loans.

I’ll agree that I see plenty of students who don’t belong in law school (thankfully less than the 1L experience) and certainly don’t agree with the law school’s philosophy of giving everyone a shot, raking in cash, and sending young kids who don’t know any better packing with $30-60K in debt and no degree. I am all for the reform of 4th Tier admissions and would like to see the reputation of my school match the caliber of student I see every weekend (doctors, MBAs, executives who travel from halfway across the country to attend) rather than the weekday students fresh out of college who won’t be passing the bar, and really shouldn’t be in law school.

Flag this comment

38.

J.D.
Apr 3, 2009 8:06 AM CST

The NYTimes is the Tier 5 of newspapers.

Flag this comment

39.

bac59447
Apr 3, 2009 8:22 AM CST

Granted it’s a short article but it’s shocking that partner compensation is not mentioned in the suggested changes.  Partner expectations are driving everything else:  Partners in big firms want to make a million bucks plus so they hire lots of little lab rats that they then bill out at outrageous hourly rates and require that they bill 3,000 hours a year.  It’s no different from shareholders expecting their companies to grow at a 10% rate infinitely—it creates all the wrong incentives.  Start with the greed at the top and you might get somewhere.  Otherwise this will be just like the last 5 “the classic law firm model is changing” moments I’ve seen in the last 20 years.  Which is to say nothing will change.

Flag this comment

40.

tiers of a clown
Apr 3, 2009 8:24 AM CST

All the Tier 4 people whining about how special they are and how they are being oppressed in this thread are boring me to tears.
James did not say all Tier 4 schools should close or that all Tier 4 law school grads are wastes of space.
He said lots of Tier 4 schools are diploma mills who chisel tens of thousands of dollars out of students who can’t pass the bar.  These statements are true.
Is every Tier 1 student smarter than every Tier 4 student?  No.
Are Tier 1 students smarter on average than Tier 4 students?  Yes.
Do Tier 1 students have more successful careers than Tier 4 students?  Yes.
Why is this so difficult to understand?

Flag this comment

41.

DD
Apr 3, 2009 8:26 AM CST

I am a first year associate in BigLaw making an excess of $100k.  I attended a T4 law school although I was accepted to a T2 school. My decision was for personal reasons,  many that have been stated here. Opportunites exist for everyone no matter which path your choose. To classify T3/T4 schools as diploma mills is ignorant, closed-minded, and only perpetuates the self-made class system that we’ve created in our society. Are there T4 schools out there that should probably close its doors? Sure. But there are also T1 schools out there that produce crappy lawyers who never were taught anything about the actual practice of law.  It’s all about preferences and differences, which should always be respected. Not everyone has the same ambition to work in BigLaw…most lawyers in this country don’t and that doesn’t make them any less in our profession.

Flag this comment

42.

T Rankin Terry, Jr.
Apr 3, 2009 8:27 AM CST

This weekend when I have more time I plan to write a more extensive piece on these issues. However, the short version is that sooner or later the profession is going to have to adopt what I call the “medical model” to train lawyers.

That is, post JD, everyone has to serve a one year supervised general internship followed by a one to three year “approved’ residency program which can be general or specialized. The pay during the internship and residency will probably be low.

Like it or not this profession is a business. The reality is that the market place will no longer support the “on the job training” model. Clients, when they have the power, have stopped paying for it. To expect the law schools to do it is just cuts the number of substantive courses taken.

Flag this comment

43.

MG Hanlon
Apr 3, 2009 8:41 AM CST

Having practiced for 30 years, I can assure James and others who seem fixated on “tiers” that whatever school you went to is completely forgotten when you walk into court.  It is you and your opponent attempting to persuade the judge or jury.

Flag this comment

44.

Jake
Apr 3, 2009 8:47 AM CST

I went to a Tier 1 law school, Washington and Lee, and received probably the crappiest educational experience of my life.  I learned nothing that helped me on the Bar Exam so I had to take BarBri.  I learned nothing about what lawyers do.  I spent a lot of money for that “education” and came out with no practical experience.  I was told and have continued to be told that being a lawyer is something lawyers teach other lawyers, but all that’s just platitudes.  It’s utter nonsense that medical schools full of possible doctors who are a lot smarter than lawyers have the last two years full of practical experience, but law schools teach you the “skills” of a lawyer pretty much the first year and then make you float around for a couple years while you pray you meet somebody with an “in” at a law firm so you can maybe get a job in the field.  It’s ridiculous.  I have yet to find a single person make even close to a cogent argument of why law schools don’t teach how to be lawyers, or even what lawyers do.

Flag this comment

45.

Jake
Apr 3, 2009 8:52 AM CST

Oh yeah, I forgot to add, I took BarBri after graduation, learned what law actually is, passd the Bar Exam, and have been licensed since October, 2007.  And yet I STILL don’t know what lawyers do, despite numerous requests for information from my school’s career services office.  This profession doesn’t require high intelligence for success, it’s based almost exclusively on your personal network and your work ethic (aside from school ranking), not on your intelligence.

Flag this comment

46.

Kalifornia Arnold
Apr 3, 2009 9:03 AM CST

Who takes the NYT seriously? A newspaper that refuses to carry a comics page is not worth reading nor listening to regarding everything.

Flag this comment

47.

transfer guy
Apr 3, 2009 9:07 AM CST

I want to somewhat agree with the guy who says transfer out of the T4 school. I could have been accepted to a T1, 2,3 and 4 schools. My plan was to go to the T4 school for a year so I can work and save up my money then go to the T2 school I was accepted at. I did carry out my plan and graduated from a T2 school. But I believe the missed contacts, the missed work opportunities, and several other factors led me to believe that I should have gone straight to the T1 or T2 school. While I have a great career right now. If I had to do it over again I personally would have done it differently. I also agree that the T4 school I went to was tougher than the T2 school I graduated from.

Flag this comment

48.

HVB
Apr 3, 2009 9:08 AM CST

Jake’s comment about a “crappy” law school should not be taken as particilar to W&L.  His view represents an age-old debate of whether law schools should be trade schools.  But the “trade” is too varied for that.  A school could spend three years to train you to do M&A at Biglaw, or domestic and consumer bankruptcy as a solo, but it can’t do both.  The “trade school” objective has appeal but won’t work in practice.
Jake: Lawyers help people solve problems.  There are as many types of problems as there are people, so you can’t be more specific as to “lawyers.”

Flag this comment

49.

associate
Apr 3, 2009 9:09 AM CST

T Rankin Terry

Your idea about residency will never happen.  You’re going to switch from 150k in debt and being 25 before you’re able to begin working to 400-500k in debt (gotta pay those people teaching the extra four years you’re advocating) and 29 before you begin working.

If you thought associates with 200-300/hr rates were high, lookout.  You’re now talking about associates needing 600-700/hr to make their debt payments.  Not to mention paying them to wait until 29 to even think about buying a working car or anything.

crazy.

I think the whole issue of cost and all goes back to tuition.  Tuition is COMPLETELY out of line with costs and benefits.  Law schools are money presses to the university they’re run by.  Until you address the tuition/debt issue, you’ll never improve anything regarding legal help access or affordability.

Flag this comment

50.

Sammy
Apr 3, 2009 9:14 AM CST

As a young entrepreneur, I once hired a law firm to investigate an employment issue. The issue revolved around materiality.  My attny had a 3L from a 1st tier school do the research. He spent 4 hours and mailed me 100 pages - photocopies from several court opinions. I fired the lawyer.

I then hired another attorney. She had a 3L from a 4th tier school do 2 hours of research. They faxed me a crisply written three-page memo that succintly defined the issue and plotted a course of action.

As a client, I want a lawyer that is more concerned about me than himself. That seems to be the difference between “tiers.” A tier 1 graduate has an entitlement attitude - they are entitled to money and prestige.  A tier 4 graduate has an underdog attitude and is looking to prove their worth.

The reality is that all law schools, regardless of “tier,” give students a base level legal education. And, most law schools force the students to teach themselves the law.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.