Mark Greenbaum, a Washington, D.C. attorney, has been widely quoted over the past week for an opinion column he wrote in the Los Angeles Times where he asserts there are too many law schools.
He argues that the ABA is too lax in its accreditation, and that the Federal government should take steps to “stop the rapid flow of attorneys into the marketplace.”
Greenbaum does not seem to know the history of the ABA and its accreditation battles. Not too long ago, critics were calling for the Federal government to step in because the ABA was too strict in allowing new schools.
Now, in 15 years, it seems the pendulum has swung completely the other way.
But in reality, it is just perception that has swung the other way. When we look at the legal profession within the lens of the current economic recession, it seems foolish to go to law school. But then again, it also seems foolish to become an architect. But few people would argue that the construction industry will rebound. And the legal profession is also expected to grow long-term.
Greenbaum does makes some insightful comments about the rising cost of tuition and debt, and poses an important question in regards to whether law schools have misled prospective students with employment and salary data.
But his assertion that we need the Federal government to protect us from ourselves, is a little too Socialist in nature for me. What he seems to want the ABA to do —to restrict the number of law schools so as to limit the number of attorneys — is exactly what the Clinton Justice Department found to be illegal.
The ABA almost lost their accreditation powers because of that. I hardly think that is now the solution.
Is the assertion that law
Is the assertion that law schools are producing too many lawyers ("rapid flow of attorneys into the marketplace") or that the lawyers they are producing are not adequately trained (lax accreditation)? These are different problems.
If the first, who is being hurt? Clients (who presumably will get legal services at lower prices)? Graduating students (who apparently should be protected against their own folly in choosing to go to law school)? Or maybe existing lawyers (who may have to work harder to make the same amount of money)? I'm not sympathetic to any such claim. Sounds like market protectionism to me.
Or is it rather a problem of inadequate training? Here, I'm sympathetic. Inadequate training hurts both clients and graduating students. But it's not clear that the training law schools provide is any worse today than it was 30 years ago when I graduated from law school; indeed, on average, it's probably better.
Nor it is clear to me that the problem is with law schools that specialize in training lower-LSAT applicants. Such schools commonly focus on teaching, rather than scholarship, and often do a very good job of adding value. Yet the solution Mr. Greenbaum offers -- tougher accreditation standards -- will inevitably put the most pressure on lower-tier schools, not on the Yales of this world. Even if Yale were to add no value whatever (a hypothesis which I am confident is contrary to fact), it would still pass any accreditation standards the ABA might conceivably impose with flying colors.
The conclusion that the federal government should intervene is unsupported. Why does Mr. Greenbaum believe that the federal government knows better how many lawyers Alabama needs and how they should be trained?
Greenbaum's right. The
Greenbaum's right. The current model can't continue w/o an implosion. It will be interesting to see what replaces it but currently law schools crop up like dandelions. And those schools are admitting and graduating lawyers at a ridiculous pace more focused on admissions and monetary benefits for their respective institutions than the realistic prospects for their graduates ability to get jobs that will allow them to live and pay the ridiculous loans they're saddled with despite their 40 yr payment plans.
There should be no limitation
There should be no limitation on a person's pursuit of the educational choice they make, subject to normal market limitations. If someone wishes to have a legal education and an institution is willing to provide it, that should be sufficient provided that the education satisfies minimum standards and provided that the student is fully informed of what employment prospects are likely to exist after graduation. Rather than seeking federal restrictions or standards to reduce the number of law graduates, there should be strict requirements of honest and full disclosure by law schools of the types of jobs obtained by their graduates, the percentage that did not obtain law jobs or continue advanced education, and the length of time before employment was obtained. If a student has information as to past employment opportunities and an assurance of minimum quality, then the question of whether to pursue a legal education should be left to that student.