May 6, 2015

"The reason why job prospects are improving for law students is because the amount of people in law school is going down."

"We're not creating more real lawyer jobs, we're just decreasing the supply of would-be lawyers."  

"Is that a bad thing?"

29 comments:

Rusty said...

"Is that a bad thing?"


No.


A perfect example of how the laws of supply and demand effect labor.

AJ Lynch said...

Pet peeve of mine ..it should say the "number of people" not the "amount of people".

James Pawlak said...

Shakespeare's better solution.

Dick:
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."


Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78

tim maguire said...

I graduated law school in 2004, which at the time was the worst year for lawyer employment in living memory. I remember people literally crying in the hallway as the reality of the job market and a lifetime of debt crashed down on them.

The last couple years I've seen articles comparing the current market unfavorably to those heady carefree days of the mid 2000's.

Brando said...

No. Next question!

tim maguire said...

James Pawlak said...
Shakespeare's better solution.

Dick:
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."


Funny how people citing that line rarely bother to note who Dick was and why he wanted to kill all the lawyers. Context doesn't help your point.

MadisonMan said...

Is that a rhetorical question?

Brando said...

I'll also point out that a glut of lawyers on the market isn't just a bad thing for lawyers--it also means that a lot of desperate people with a license to practice law are going to be taking up lawsuits that in better days would have been dropped as having no chance of success. This means a lot more people and businesses having to defend themselves in frivilous lawsuits.

MadisonMan said...

a lot of desperate people with a license to practice law are going to be taking up lawsuits that in better days would have been dropped as having no chance of success. This means a lot more people and businesses having to defend themselves in frivilous lawsuits.

Is this really true? Is there a database somewhere that tracks the number of lawsuits filed?

"I've a lot of time on my hands...I think I'll sue someone" That sounds like a line from a Mel Brooks movie.

Curious George said...

It's a start.

Larry J said...

No, we don't need to kill all the lawyers. But closing many law schools and either repurposing the buildings or razing them and salting the ground would be a good start.

PB said...

It's definitely reflective of supply and demand, BUT, it's not a free market with law schools limiting their classes allegedly due to a lack of quality candidates. ALSO, don't forget the vast protection provided by the ABA which functions as a union allegedly for the protection of the public, but in reality it serves as a protection for the profession to avoid erosion of earnings.

If you had a truly free market in the legal world, lawyer salaries across the board, top-to-bottom would fall and costs to clients would fall also. In some ways, technology has assisted in lowering costs, but that's not the same thing as a free market for labor in the legal profession.

Hagar said...

I have never understood why people think that if they have a law degree they must become lawyers.

If the law school was any good, their education should be a good background to have for many careers other than practising law as such.

Robyn BAILEY-ORCHARD said...

Writers need to learn standard English.

"The reason why job prospects are improving for law students is because the amount of people in law school is going down."

should read

"The reason why job prospects are improving for law students is THAT the NUMBER of people in law school is DECREASING."

James Pawlak said...

The too many law suits could be limited by making the loser pay the attorney's fees and costs of the winner. (Perhaps, the judge should be allowed to make the attorney "jointly and severally" responsible for such for aggravated wastes of the courts' time.

TO TIM MCGUIRE: Yes, I am aware of the context; But, offer that as an alternative.

Carol said...

I have never understood why people think that if they have a law degree they must become lawyers.

Yeah that's one of the things the dean tells you at orientation. But for a new graduate with no connections, the JD is the mark of Cain that must be omitted from an application.

Then, how to explain the three lost years.

bbkingfish said...

Thanks, A.J.

Gahrie said...

No.

Hagar said...

If you are processing sausage, amount of sausage is appropriate, and if that is how you look at students ....

sdharms said...

"amount" of people? really? who wrote that? People are measured in integers, they are discrete. Anything that can be measured continuously, like water, you say "amount" . If you are talking about discrete entities , you say "number.

Fernandinande said...

Robyn BAILEY-ORCHARD said...
...
should read
"The reason why job prospects are improving for law students is THAT the NUMBER of people in law school is DECREASING."


Still plenty of extraneous words.

"Employment for law students improves as their numbers decrease."

"Fewer law students means better jobs for those students."

"Fewer law students means better jobs." For everyone!

mikee said...

Compare the decrease in the flow from the pipeline of law schools to the decrease in the flow from an oil pipeline.

Demand for oil indicates economic prosperity worldwide.

When demand falls so low as to decrease oil production due to oversupply, it not only means the oil industry sucks, it means the world economy sucks.

So it is with law schools. Nobody wants more lawyers right now, producing fewer each year will work fine for a while, but eventually you realize that nobody wants lawyers because nobody is doing the things lawyers do - like contracts for business - and that we are all in a world of hurt.

Thanks, Obama.

Douglas said...

Brando,
That's very unlikely. My recollection is that less than 10% of the lawyers in the US ever set foot in a courtroom. There isn't that much demand for trial lawyers, and it's a type of legal practice that takes a lot of training and skill. A bunch of untrained lawyers who couldn't find jobs with firms are unlikely to be charging around scooping up plausible cases and bringing them to trial.

Richard Lawrence Cohen said...

In fairness, they were speaking extemporaneously, not writing.

Laura said...

Now if there were a means for controlling the glut of lawyers in Congress, perhaps there would be more diversity in politics.

Lawyers of differing skin color, sexual orientation, and gender still share commonalities, no?

Brando said...

"That's very unlikely. My recollection is that less than 10% of the lawyers in the US ever set foot in a courtroom. There isn't that much demand for trial lawyers, and it's a type of legal practice that takes a lot of training and skill. A bunch of untrained lawyers who couldn't find jobs with firms are unlikely to be charging around scooping up plausible cases and bringing them to trial."

Most cases never make it to trial--they're settled or dropped much earlier. That doesn't mean they don't have a negative impact on defendants (and the court system) though.

I don't have stats to back my point--it's possible that the number of "weak" cases either hasn't increased, or has increased for other reasons--but it stands to reason that a lot of attorneys who can't find other work are far less picky about the cases they pick up on contingency or for low fees.

~ Gordon Pasha said...

Article on today's TaxProf blog linking to another article that they should close the 30 lowest performing ABA schools.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2015/05/we-would-be-better-off-.html

I say bring it.

befinne said...

Thank you, Robyn. NEVER write "the reason why (xyz) is because (abc)." You can write "The reason why (xyz) is that (abc)" or "(xyz) is because of (abc). But you can't write "the reason why ... is because." A reason is not because of something; it is itself the cause.

befinne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.