Lawyer Satisfaction Blog

Jordan Furlong has posted an article in his blog entitled "The Crossed Purposes of Legal Education" about the law schools responsibility for the gap between what prospective law students imagine about the profession and the reality they find when they enter the legal workforce.

He refers to an article in Forbes describing "the great college hoax" drawing a comparison between professional schools and subprime mortgage hawkers inclluding misguided easy-money policies, half-truths exaggerating the value of its product adding "A few law schools deliberately obfuscate the rewards of a legal career, but too many more finesse or downplay the reality of the debt versus the earning power of a law degree." 

 

He goes on to add

 

"This is an embarrassment, said the panellists at an AALS Committee on Research Program, the podcast of which is available at Tax Law Prof. The strongest words came from New York Law School Dean Richard Matasar: "We should be ashamed of ourselves.  We own our students' outcomes. We took them. We took their money. We live on their money .... And if they don't have a good outcome in life, we're exploiting them. It's our responsibility to own the outcomes of our institutions." Southwestern Law Dean Bryant Garth added: "This group [the AALS] has stonewalled completely and killed any kind of real consumer information for 20 or 30 years, and that's what made U.S. News own this particular enterprise."

I then posted this Comment

 

Hi Jordan

 

As you said,"Law schools are involved in one industry - the granting of legal degrees."

 

But here's what Stanford Law School's mission is::

 

"Despite these differences, Stanford Law School's basic mission has not changed since Nathan Abbott's day: dedication to the highest standards of excellence in legal scholarship and to the training of lawyers equipped diligently, imaginatively, and honorably to serve their clients and the public; to lead our profession; and to help solve the problems of our nation and the world."

 

I think that the Law School Industry should prepare students to practice law and to serve the public.

 

It is for that reason that I have started my campaign to be appointed the Czar of the Law School Industry.... 

 

I do have an opening for campaign manager if anyone is interested.

 

Ron

 

PS I agree with Jared and have proposed for years that we work to pass legislation authorizing apprenticeship in all states that don't allow it at present (I think that seven states do.)

I thought about it and then went back and posted this additional comment:

 

I forgot to add that, based on my not having heard one member of one faculty in the last twenty-five years being able to give me a reasonable justification of why law students  should spend a third year at his or her law school, as part of my Law School Industry Czar campaign, I will soon issue a proposed Ukase (the edict of a Czar) that will eliminate the third year of law school, immediately reducing the cost to attend by one-third.

 

I recently read an on-line article from a London newspaper that Baker & McKenzie cut six New York associates in an office of 140 lawyers including 60 partners as part of a range of cost-cutting measures introduced in response to market conditions. The article used the English term saying the firm had announced "redundancies", a definition for which is "having lost your job because the employer no longer needs you."

Baker & McKenzie, of course, is not alone. Layoffs of associates have been announced at Foley Hoag in Boston, Parker Poe in Charlotte and Blank Rome in Philadelphia and seem likely at Kirkland and Ellis in Chicago.

Somehow being "redundant" seems to say it with more of a kick in the pants than simply being laid off.  

Imagine becoming redundant?

You went to a law school that's hard to get into and did so well in your interviews during the beginning of your second year that you got a summer position at one of these firms. While there in the summer, you worked hard (or not) and were fortunate enough to get an offer to join the firm upon graduation.

You have been there for what - 3 years - and you are now "redundant"? Who says? How was that decision made? Were you on the committee that decided that six associates should be cut? Were you on the committee that decided that YOU should be cut?

Was there any discussion in the firm about having all partners and associates in the "law firm "family" take a small hit so that your position could be saved?

Were you given an opportunity to have training in another area of law and move to another department or office?

Is there an associates' union at the firm - one that has the right to bargain on all issues related to work conditions for associates including pay, hours, abusive partners, and becoming redundant? Are you aware of an associates' union at any other firm?

What were you told about your being redundant? Were you told that it had anything to do with your job performance? If so, was that inconsistent with your prior reviews?

Did you take clinical courses during law school? Are you prepared to go into private practice on your own or in a firm of less than 5 lawyers? Have you ever worked at such a firm? Do you know the range of legal options you have?

Since few openings are advertised or are known by headhunters, do you know how to go about making a decision about what you want to do and how to market yourself in order to find such a position?

Having advised and provided career planning for lawyers for 25 years, I can safely say that the worst effect of being laid off is beginning to believe the "redundant" label and deciding that no one needs you.

Rest assured, you have options and you ARE needed!!

Below are excerpts from a Memorandum which I sent last year to the Professor at Stanford Law School who was heading up the search committee for an Executive Director for its Levin Center for Public Service and Public Interest.

_______________________

(O)ver the last 44 years since I graduated law school in 1963, I have continued to be concerned about whom graduating law students represent. As critical social issues continued to come to the attention of the public (poverty, health, housing, education, the environment, as well as the rights or women, children, minorities and gays), as many as 95% of those graduating from law schools, especially the highly selective ones, took positions in the largest law firms representing the largest corporations and the wealthiest 1% of our citizens.

I am not writing this because of any specific knowledge I have of Stanford Law School other than reading a press release entitled "Stanford, Harvard Plan Ambitious Curriculum Changes" nor have I written a letter like this to any other law school. For all I know recent graduates from Stanford Law School are taking positions that reflect the hopes and concerns of the law school, its students and the larger community. If not, what I am suggesting is that the hiring of an executive director of the public interest law center be put on hold while a one year study is undertaken aimed at developing a comprehensive strategy meant to implement the law school's mission found on its website:

"Despite these differences, Stanford Law School's basic mission has not changed since Nathan Abbott's day: dedication to the highest standards of excellence in legal scholarship and to the training of lawyers equipped diligently, imaginatively, and honorably to serve their clients and the public; to lead our profession; and to help solve the problems of our nation and our world."

After a number of years founding law firms representing individuals, creating lawyer referral programs, developing the field of divorce mediation and an advocacy training institute, I began to work in 1983 at Harvard Law School as the Public Interest Advisor, continuing the pioneering work of Doug Phelps, the first to hold such a position in a law school.

From then until 1989 when Bob Clark temporarily closed the office, I worked with about 40% of all students. There were workshops, speakers panels, mentoring with alumni/ae, job fairs and individual counseling sessions.

For the next five years after I left Harvard, I presented programs and consulted to twenty five law schools and law related associations. Through these programs and in my book,

Lawful Pursuit: Careers in Public Interest Law published in 1994 by the ABA Law Student Division, I warned law students about the ways in which law schools divert them from careers serving the legal needs of the public and advised them on how to overcome these barriers and find satisfying positions in the law.

Some of my conclusions, based on my personal experience and involvement with career planners at other law schools, are: at least 40% of those entering law school planned to use their legal degree to serve the legal needs of the public; very few were interested in practicing commercial law as an employee of a large law firm; and the highly selective law schools "funneled" their students into large law firms because they:failed to implement a mission of serving the legal needs of the public; failed to teach the fundamental skills of the profession; failed to teach the fundamental values of the legal profession; failed to make students aware of the wide range of options in the practice of law; permitted large law firms to have operated for their benefit, an on-campus hiring program; and charged exorbitant amounts for the services they provide.

The predicable result of this diversion was the extraordinarily high job and career dissatisfaction found not only in law firm associates but also in the legal profession as a whole.

The underlying questions are: what does the law school believe its graduates should do with their degrees; what do the students want to do with their degrees; are a high percentage of its graduates going to work for large law firms; is this what the law school wants; is this what the students want; and is this in the best interests of our society?

The urgent need for lawyers to represent the public should be a primary mission of the law school not a separate subsidiary "office". The creation of public interest offices was a positive step in the 80's but many law schools staffed the offices with low level administrators with little law practice experience whose role was to familiarize students with a few well-known organizations (ACLU, NAACP, NRDC) with few openings (as opposed to providing awareness of the thousands of individual practitioners representing those with personal plight issues) resulting in those students taking fallback positions with large firms through on-campus interviewing. Moreover, the establishment of what began to be referred to as "loan repayment" programs were ineffective since the high cost of law school, as noted above, is only one of many factors diverting law students from their intended career paths.

On campus interviewing, of course, should be eliminated. At one annual NALP conference session in 1992 when I recommended this, the moderator asked for a show of hands and close to 80% of the placement staff attending from many law schools voted in favor of ending OCI. When asked why it exists, one placement staffer said her dean insisted on it because of its importance to the ratings in the US News and World Report which rewarded the law schools which sent the most students the quickest for the highest salaries to the biggest law firms and had no category for the best teaching of skills and values.

My suggestions are not simply relevant to those seeking to represent individuals. The MacCrate Report contains many of the solutions on how the law school curriculum should be revised so that graduates and be confident enough to go out on their own and represent any clients, including businesses. (In 1988, I compiled and analyzed the list of positions taken by the last 2500 graduates of the most recent 5 classes at Harvard Law School. One astonishing finding was that only 4 had NOT taken positions as an employee of some institution - two had started CityYear and two had started a legal services program.)

There is such an urgent need for service to so many members of the public. Hopefully, the implementation of well thought out proposals would be that careers in public interest and social justice would become a realistic option for those attending the law school.

Should anyone want to discuss this further, please feel free to contact me by e-mail or telephone.

Ron Fox

Ronald W. Fox, Esquire

Center for Professional Development in the Law

 

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington DC 20500
January 1, 2011

 

Dear President Obama,

We all knew it was coming!

 

On December 3, 2008, an article appeared in CNNMoney.com "Verdict is in: Legal job market tightens" The article said "Employment opportunities for legal professionals have traditionally been plentiful - and lucrative. But as the economy has dried up, so too have those jobs.... (This) is a job market that is contracting for the first time in recent history....(R)ecent graduates not only face experienced competition for limited jobs but also hefty student loan bills. 'Recent grads are going to have a hard time'".

The lead story of the December 10, 2008, Boston Globe "Harvard Curtails Tenure Searches" began, "Harvard University officials said yesterday that they will postpone nearly all searches for tenure-track professors in the school's largest academic body, a sobering indication of how the economic crisis has hit the world's wealthiest university."

 

What followed was: a sharp decrease in the number of applications for admission to law schools in the fall of 2009; dissolution and failures of hundreds of large law firms; an increase in the number of bankruptcies filed by law school graduates of the classes of 2006, 2007 and 2008. By October, 2010, deans of most of the ABA accredited law schools in the country, accompanied by thousands of their most prominent alumni/ae descended upon the nation's capitol to plead for a $3 billion bailout to save their industry. In their impassioned testimony they urged Congress to act, pointing out how the failure of the law school industry could have widespread negative repercussions throughout the country:

   Large law firms who represented the biggest corporations in the world would have to lay off thousands if the law schools were unable to "funnel" unwilling law students to their firms;
   Large corporations would suffer: i.e., a large corporation producing Hummers unable to retain lawyers to plead the case against higher fuel efficiency standards; coal companies unable to obtain permits for strip-mining; tobacco companies unable to prevent the distribution of material warning about the dangers of smoking; oil companies unable to lobby to "drill, drill, drill";
   Law schools, with their graduates unable to repay the extraordinary amount of the loans that they have incurred, would have to reduce salaries of professors and lay off thousands of staff; and
   Even the universities to which the law schools are a department would suffer as the law schools, affectionately referred to as "cash cows", no longer infuse the colleges with needed subsidies. Some universities would, in order to survive, have to extend the winter recess from October 12 to April 14 in order to continue to pay professors their full salaries.

Congress also heard from others, however, who emphasized how out-of-touch the management of the law school industry is and how they industry has failed for decades to produce a product needed or desired by the American public. One witness read this 1980 quote from Lloyd Cutler (legal adviser to Presidents Carter and Clinton: "The rich who pay our (lawyer) fees are less than 1% of our fellow citizens, but they get at least 95% of our time. The disadvantaged we serve for nothing are perhaps 20-25% of the population and get at most 5% of our time. The remaining 75% cannot afford to consult us and get virtually none of our time." And provided statistics from the National Association of Law Placement which indicated that at most of the "select" law schools (that doesn't mean they are good, just that they are hard to get into) until recently, upwards of 95% of their graduates took jobs with large law firms.

Others from non-select law schools testified that their vision was to emulate the select law schools and find all their graduates jobs in large firms so that they could make a lot of money and pay back the loans taken to attend law school and donate lots of money to pay the high salaries of the professors who devote most of their time to making appearances on TV and writing arcane papers.

A member of a consumer group reported that responses from law schools indicated that not one of the law schools had surveyed its students as they registered at their school or at any time during the first year to find out who they wanted to represent (individuals, small businesses, public interest organizations, large corporations) and how many want to start their own firms rather than being an employee at a large law firm.

Another witness was a member of the highly regarded committee that released the MacCrate Report (the chair of the committee was Robert MacCrate, former President of the American Bar Association 1987-88). The MacCrate report found that there were ten fundamental skills needed by a lawyer to competently practice law and the law schools only taught two (and did that poorly.) It also compiled a list of four fundamental values of the legal profession required to be taught by law schools. One of them is: "Striving to Promote Justice, Fairness and Morality. ... As a member of a profession that bears special responsibilities for the quality of justice, a lawyer should be committed to the values of: 2.1 Promoting Justice, Fairness and Morality in One's Own Daily Practice; 2.2 Contributing to the Profession's Fulfillment of its Responsibility to ensure that adequate legal services are provided to those who cannot afford to pay for them; 2.3 Contributing to the profession's fulfillment of its responsibility to enhance the capacity of law and legal institutions to do justice."

As the ABA began to take serious action to implement the recommendations of the MacCrate Report, a law school dean who was a leader in the opposition became a leader of the ABA and the MacCrate Report was relegated to what is commonly referred to as the "dustbin of history".

A second year student recalled reading the annual rating of law schools in the US News & World Report to decide which was the best law school. Only recently did she realize that the criteria used by the magazine were useless in that not one evaluated law schools based on the extent to which they provided the skills and values needed to practice law competently.

 

Recent graduates testified about: not being taught the value of promoting justice in any course except that "silly" professional responsibility course that the law school was required to have but everyone knew was irrelevant;" not being taught how to practice law; the on-campus interview program and the negative effect it had on them and their classmates; not knowing what their options are for practicing law or anything about the demographics of the legal profession, thinking that everyone practiced in large law firms, not knowing that 66% of the profession practices in firms of 5 lawyers and that over 50% are sole practitioners; never having been exposed to career planning (what are your interests, your vision, your goals, your options, your preference, how to promote and market yourself); how their experience in law school had destroyed their self-confidence, their self-esteem and their sense of self-worth;
with tears in their eyes, how they hated the boring meaningless work they were doing in the large law firm; being over their heads in debt; being so dissatisfied with their career path but having no idea of what to do except apply along with thousands of others to the few advertised jobs; and wistfully recalling they had gone to law school so that they could continue to assist women and children as they had done while in college.

Videos compiled by over one hundred consumer organizations were shown. In each one of them individuals from all walks of life testified about how they were unable to find a lawyer to represent them in a wide variety of cases including sickness caused by pollution, evictions from homes being foreclosed, insurance claims for hurricane damage, discrimination against gays, discrimination in employment of women, injuries to veterans, abused children, claims for injury from toys, denial of insurance, inadequate public education, access to public buildings for the disabled and abuse of the elderly.

I appreciated the opportunity I had to testify before the committee first quoting my warning from an article I posted on FindLaw about fifteen years ago entitled "Looking for Law in All the Wrong Places: Choosing the Best Law School":

Continue reading "Request of Ronald W. Fox to be Appointed Law School Industry Czar" »

(Note the use of the Roman numerals in the title. While it might be inconsistent with a Russian theme, I thought it might gain the status of the NFL Super Bowl.)

When asked whether a new law school graduate is ready to practice law, most say "No."

The basis for the problem is that for over one hundred years law schools have seen their mission as teaching students how to think like a lawyer - what might be referred to as a Graduate School Model, uniformly rejecting the medical school approach which prepares students to practice their profession - the Professional School Model. The MacCrate report strongly criticizes law schools for their heavy reliance on the Socratic method and appellate case analysis as somewhat effective in teaching legal reasoning and research but not so for the other eight fundamental skills needed by the practitioner (problem solving, factual investigation, communication, counseling, negotiation, litigation and ADR, organization and management of legal work, recognizing and resolving ethical dilemmas.

"Relatively few law students have exposure to the full range of professional skills offerings. The Task Force found that the majority of graduating law students had four of fewer skills "experiences" (simulated skills, clinics, externships or others) while in law school... professional skills training occupies only nine (9%) of the total instructional time available at law schools." MacCrate Report, p 240 based on 1990-91 data.

With millions suffering because of inaccessibility of legal services, we need to insure that thousands of law students each year do not abandon their hopes and visions of using their legal training to help individuals, effect social change or simply serve the legal needs of the public. We need to provide them the training they need to be able to do so. .

"What would we say of a medical school where students were taught surgery solely from the printed page? No one, if he could do otherwise, would teach the art of playing golf by having the teacher talk about golf to the prospective player and having the latter read a book relating to the subject" Judge Frank, MSL p. 166

Within 60 days all law schools will submit to my office a report which includes:

For the current academic year, the number of clinical and the number of simulated teaching courses including how many available slots for each class there are and what percentage that represents of all slots for all classes.

A tentative curriculum for the next academic year at least half of which courses will be experiential and at least half of those will be simulated (teacher will present information or a concept, the student will "perform" and the student will then be evaluated - a pedagogical approach less expensive than clinics.) The plan will include assurances that those teaching the courses have or will secure the education required to teach such courses. .

For both the current list of course offerings and the tentative curriculum for the next academic year, please note for each course which of the ten fundamental skills will be taught in that course as well as the components of experiential instruction incorporated in any course.

I expect that every law school graduate will be a professional; i.e., have knowledge of a craft, autonomy, be treated with respect and do meaningful work serving clients who need their services.

Comments?

As you may have read, I am campaigning to be appointed Law School Industry Czar ("LSI Czar")  based on the platform that law schools have failed students, graduates/lawyers and the public. To allow time for public input, I am publishing now the Ukases (edicts of the Czars) I expect to promulgate upon taking the position.

 

For future reference there will be frequent references to my two bibles: the first is Legal Education and Professional Development - An Educational Continuum - The Report of The Task Force on Law Schools and the Profession: Narrowing the Gap published by the American Bar Association Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar in 1992 ("MacCrate Report")

 

The second was also published in 1992 and is titled The Deeply Unsatisfactory Nature of Legal Education Today - A Self-Study Report On The Problems Of Legal Education And On The Steps The Massachusetts School Of Law Has Taken To Overcome Them. ("MSL Report")  

 

Some law school deans have expressed the concern that compliance with my Ukases may cause them to be in conflict with the ABA council that accredits law schools. Not to worry. The US Department of Education recently named the LSI Czar as the recognized national agency for the accreditation of legal education programs leading to a first degree.  

 

LSI Czar Ukase I

 

Every law school will immediately review its mission - that brief statement that describes its purpose. While there will be no mandatory provisions, law schools will be looked upon favorably (take that as you will) if it contains provisions about training lawyers to practice law and about serving the legal needs of the public such as that which can be found on the website of Stanford Law School:.

 

"Stanford Law School's basic mission has not changed since Nathan Abbott's day: dedication to the highest standards of excellence in legal scholarship and to the training of lawyers equipped diligently, imaginatively, and honorably to serve their clients and the public; to lead our profession; and to help solve the problems of our nation and our world."

 

Within 60 days each law school will submit to the LSI Czar, based on its mission statement, a detailed outline of its goals (the broad outcome), strategies (the approaches to be taken), objectives (measurable steps to achieve the strategies) and tactics (the tools to be used).

 

As an example, suppose your mission includes helping to solve the problems of our nation. One goal might be to have your graduates prepared to provide competent representation to those combatting global warming. A strategy would be to develop a comprehensive educational plan that included courses, term-time employment and summer positions on relevant environmental issues. An objective might be to have ten (10) students secure positions working in the field at graduation (so you can measure the extent of your success). The tools would include: promotion of this major to the students; course descriptions that include what skills will be taught, a comprehensive list of all lawyers and organizations working on global warming and faculty assigned to each enrolled student to provide guidance and networking.   

 

An even more favorable view will be taken of a law school if its mission statement incorporates Section EC 1-1 of the ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility  

 

"A basic tenet of the professional responsibility of lawyers is that every person in our society should have ready access to the independent professional services of a lawyer of integrity and competence."

 

As we work together to improve legal education, I hope we will all keep in mind something that Barack Obama said during his campaign:

 

"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we have been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."

 

 

Recently I posted My Request to Be Appointed Law School Industry Czar on another blog but have now transferred it here and suggest you read it. As of today I have two supporters in my campaign.  I sense the beginning of a grassroots movement in favor of my selection. 

 

If you have read the request, you know I am convinced that law schools have failed their students, their lawyer/graduates and the public over the last decades by not teaching their students the skills and values they need to practice law, not informing them about their wide range of options, and not providing career guidance instead simply offering on-campus interviews. These failings, when combined with tuition much too high for the services provided, results in thousands of law students being "funneled" to BIGLAW  where they do not want to be, and thousands of others floundering with no vision of what to do with their degree.

 

What follows is predictable - an extraordinarily high percentage of lawyers expressing their dissatisfaction with their jobs and careers while millions of members of the public with serious legal issues have no recourse to lawyers and the legal system.

 

This country is facing so many critical issues in the areas of housing, healthcare, employment, the environment, education, the economy, and foreign "entanglements". The public desperately needs the legal help that lawyers can, and want to, provide.

  

Not unlike the basis for the presentations and speeches being made by President-Elect Obama, I am taking steps to insure that when appointed, I will be able to, as he says, "hit the ground running"and the legal community will be prepared to join me in implementing reforms of law school education. .

 

So, as a self-proclaimed leading candidate for Law School Industry Czar, I will soon issue Ukase I which I will promulgate the day I am appointed. As you may be aware, the Czars had absolute authority which enabled them to issue arbitrary rulings called ukases.Also while it may be incompatible with Russian culture to use Roman numerals, I believe that the use of such symbols will give them the status of the Super Bowl.