Law schools have failed their students and the public but college graduates continue to apply and attend without having the facts or information needed to make an informed decision.

I request that you read this post and, if appropriate, forward it to any college students considering going to law school as well as any of those, such as pre-law advisers, who advise such students.

This is a unique, almost chaotic, time in the legal profession.

Large law firms are reevaluating the way they do business as the economic downturn has resulted in their clients no longer being willing to pay for the training of associates. Many also want value pricing not hourly fees.

Small firms are being given a second look and becoming more attractive to lawyers. In that vein, the presentations I am making to bar associations, including one this past September for the New York State Bar Association Committee on Lawyers in Transition, are aimed at helping lawyers learn about small firms and how to find positions there.

Law schools are under attack from all quarters: including law firms asking that the law schools prepare their students to practice law; students who are paying so much and often believing that they are getting so little; the ABA for inadequate teaching methods and devoting too much time to academic research.

Lawyers are expressing great dissatisfaction in their large firm practices. The American Bar Foundation's After the JD study of 5000 associates from the year 2000 on found that 59% of the graduates of the top law schools working for large law firms planned to leave within two and a half years.

A significant aspect of what I refer to as the "funneling" of as high as 95% of the graduates at selective law schools to large law firms through on-campus interviewing is that as many as 50% of the students wanted careers serving the public and were diverted from those careers. As you are aware we still have a crisis in the country where 80% of the legal needs of the 45,000,000 least wealthy of us are not met by the legal profession.

Some articles point out that the high cost of law school is "justification' for law students to take high paying positions. Rarely examined is why that cost is so high.

Those involved in advising college students who plan to go to law school in the past have focused primarily on how to get into the schools rated the best by the USNews annual survey. The problem is that that survey is defective. For example, it does not have a criteria evaluating how well the law school prepares students for the practice of law. Its focus is on intangibles such as reputation and which law schools get the most graduates the fastest into the largest law firms.

What is needed is a group of students or prelaw advisers who will research and inform college students about the state of legal education today. The group might want to design a far-reaching project could evaluate law schools based on whether they teach the fundamental values and skills of the legal profession and other relevant criteria such as reasonable cost. One example of such an evaluation tool is at the end of Overcoming Law School Defects .

The articles on my website and blog contain much information, resources and warnings about the deficiencies of legal education for those considering doing so.

I also recommend you read what Chuck Newton just posted in this Third Wave Blog entitled Death to Big Law (Schools)?

Law schools simply cannot live off the hope that poor (literally), innocent students can borrow ever increasing amounts of money, almost on a whim, to satisfy the peculiar beguilement and distraction of law school insiders. It is having and will continue to have very severe financial consequences for its graduates; marked by intense dissatisfaction for the choice they made to attend law school in the first place.

I invite anyone interested in talking about any of these issues or in designing a law school evaluation project to post a comment here or contact me directly by email.

When I read a the United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees on HIGHER EDUCATION Issues Related to Law School Cost and Access October 2009, I was not impressed. Those drafting the report seemed to simply accept the statements of law school officials that ABA accreditation has no affect on the cost of law school but the change to a more hands-on resource-intensive approach to legal education has affected cost. The law school officials also said that competition among schools for higher rankings reportedly have affected costs. Admitting that they strive for high ranking in this defective and highly criticized magazine's attempt to compare law schools is hard to believe.

After I read the report I drafted this Memorandum which has been forwarded by my Congressman to the above committees.

MEMORANDUM

TO: U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP)
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor
FROM: Ronald W. Fox, Esq. admin@ronaldwfox.com
Career Planning for Lawyers - Lawyer Satisfaction Blog
DATE: November 2, 2009
RE: Issues Related to the Dramatic Increase in the Cost of Law School

The impetus for my writing this was the New GAO Report, "Higher Education Issues Related to Law School Cost and Access" and briefings made to your committees.

The purpose of this Memorandum is to encourage your committees to solicit the views and opinions of others who can present to you a more in-depth analysis of the reasons why the rate of increase of the cost of law school has been so much higher than the rate of inflation and the cost of living over the last two decades.

There has been criticism of legal education in the traditional law schools ever since the day when Christopher Langdell instituted the case method at Harvard law School over 100 years ago but it reached its peak in 1992.

In that year, the MacCrate Report, also known as the ABA Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar Report of the Task Force on Law Schools and the Profession: Narrowing the Gap - Legal Education and Professional Development - An Educational Continuum was published. The task force, composed of prominent lawyers, judges and law professors, strongly criticized law schools for failing to teach eight of the ten fundamental skills needed to practice law and for not stressing the four fundamental values of the legal profession including the promotion of justice and the importance of taking positions consistent with one's personal values. The report also described as inadequate the traditional method of teaching the two skills it does teach in that it does not allow for the students to perform and be evaluated to ascertain the extent to which the students understand the concept presented .

The same ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar (which has been designated as the agency that accredits law schools) recently issued a Bar Report of the Outcome Measures Committee in which it says law schools should shift in assessment from the conceptual knowledge accumulated by students to the assessment of practical competencies (professional skills) and that law schools should incorporate ongoing assessments and other formative techniques to encourage and evaluate a student's development of tasks

Innumerable articles prior to and during this current economic downturn have been written demanding that law schools do more to prepare their students for the practice of law.

Tying together this failure to teach with the increase in the cost of law schools is Rethinking Legal Education in Hard Times: The Recession, Practical Legal Education, and the New Job Market a thoughtful paper by Daniel Thies, a student at Harvard Law School and the law student member of the Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar submitted for the Council's June 2009 retreat. After describing the law schools' tepid actions in offering skills courses but stubbornly refusing to reduce the emphasis on academic research (see B. Barriers to Reform and C. Rethinking Priorities: The Questionable Value of Legal Scholarship Today, pages 18-22) concludes:

The economic recession presents a unique opportunity for legal education to shift its priorities. Rather than using student money to subsidize academic research from full-time professors, successful schools will need to seek new ways to train students in practical skills. Only then will schools continue to be able to attract qualified students. There are many different ways that a school can achieve this end, and no two schools' solution will look the same. As long as prospective students have sufficient information and schools have the flexibility to try different solutions, however, the law schools with the best programs will begin to rise to the top. Legal educators have spent much of the last century thinking about how to integrate practical training into the law school curriculum. To echo the MacCrate Report, "[i]n sum . . . the time has come to put the pieces together."

Another source of helpful information on how and why law school costs have risen unnecessarily can be found in 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 published by the Massachusetts School of Law, Lawrence Velvel, Founder and Dean. While I am not at all aware of what is needed in a law library, the report looks at the how outdated views of what should be in a law library (perhaps pursuant to ABA accreditation requirements) increase law school costs. The most significant point in the report related to costs is the systematic withdrawal of law school faculty into academic research and scholarship. Not only is it of little educational value to students, it also means that the faculty is unavailable for administrative duties which would be a benefit to students such as career counseling, course advice, admissions, etc. That translates into the need to hire more and more staff to take over duties that faculty have taken in the past.

I have been deeply concerned about the defects in legal education from the day I started as the Public Interest Adviser at Harvard Law School in 1984. I graduated from that school in 1963 and spent the next 20 years practicing law and designing programs aimed at delivering legal services to the public. There is another negative consequence of diverting funds to academic scholarship and failing to prepare students for the practice of law. In a deadly serious satire requesting that I be appointed law school industry czar, I point out how law schools have failed not only their students but also the public as in selective schools 95% of the graduates take positions representing the wealthiest 1% of the society while the 45,000,000 least wealthy of us cannot retain the services of a lawyer for 80% of their legal problems.

Most of the posts in my blog are directed at the defects in legal education and the diversion of law students by law schools to positions in large law firms. The cause of this misplacement are widely known: the failure of the law schools to teach skills or values or the existence of small law firms combined with the huge debt load taken by so many students,

Here is a post I wrote a few months ago, a simple way to reduce law school costs and debt by one-third entitled Envisioning Law Students Eliminating the Wasted Third Year of Law School In it I propose:

There is one significant aspect of legal education that CAN be significantly improved overnight; i.e., the extraordinarily high tuition that law schools charge. The resulting high debt load has, in the past, pressured students to take positions in large law firms that held no appeal to many of them except for the salary. Today even many of those with offers do not expect to have enough income from their positions to live on. What is the solution? Eliminate the third year of law school and roll-back, just like Wal-Mart might do, the expected debt by 33%. Over the years I have often talked to students, faculty and staff. In addition many articles have been written on the subject. Rarely has anyone come up with a justification for law students staying in law school for the third year. With general agreement that the law schools take three years NOT to prepare students for the practice of law, it hardly seems that law students or their careers would be negatively affected if they only devoted two years to NOT being prepared to practice law. Estimates vary about how much time would be required to teach students how to think like a lawyer. One semester may not be sufficient but a more reasonable estimate would be 2-4 semesters.

In addition, there is a reason why universities can refer to their law schools as "cash cows". One of the arguments in favor of establishing a public law school in Massachusetts has been that it would boost the state's revenues. Here is my post on why we don't need a public law school.

Many others write often and well about the defects of legal education including the greed and self-interest of the law schools that are behind their consistent increases in tuition and related costs.

Chuck Newton, a lawyer in Huston, writes often about the failings of law school Here is just one of his posts on his blog The Law School Tuition Bubble. Has Logical Reasoning Abandoned Our Law Schools?

Here is a related article by John DiPippa, Dean William H. Bowen School of Law, University of Arkansas at Little Rock A Change - in Legal Education - is Gonna Come (with apologies to Sam Cook) where he refers to the current education forces: i.e, calls for fundamental legal education reform gaining momentum, the ABA moving toward outcome-based accreditation standards and students demanding different approaches and wanting to see value for their tuition dollars. He concludes that the "salad days" for law faculties may be over.

Law schools have in many ways failed their students and the public. One and only one aspect has been the runaway and unrestrained raises in tuition over the last two decades. Much of the increase has been unnecessary. As noted above, I suggest that if you would like to investigate further the topic of why law school costs have risen so dramatically, you review the sources above and contact some of the writers and scholars involved. Should anyone want to discuss any of the issues raised in this Memorandum further with me (or any lawyer career related topic), as noted above, I can be reached at admin@ronaldwfox.com..

AUGUST 9 1989 - HARVARD LAW SCHOOL

After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1963, I worked for a large law firm, served in the US Army JAG and worked in an insurance company. After two years as an associate for a sole practitioner, I founded two small law firms representing individuals and community groups and became one of the first lawyers in the country to offer divorce mediation. Concerned about the issue of the unmet legal needs of the public, I served on the boards of legal services programs, created referral programs for the Massachusetts Bar Association and the National Lawyers Guild, started an association of legal clinics, and served as president of a family mediation association.

In 1983 I returned to Harvard Law School as its public interest adviser. On August 9, 1989, my position was eliminated by a recently appointed dean of that law school. I have reprinted below some material related to the elimination of that position.

Since that time I have provided career advice to lawyers and law students and consulted to law schools, law firms and bar associations. In addition I have advocated for the restructuring and reform of legal education.

From what I have observed over the last 20 years, though there has been much criticism of legal education and calls for reform (including the highly regard 1992 ABA MacCrate Report), the law schools have largely ignored them.

Are you as concerned as I am that during the current economic downturn, the law school industry is desperately trying to maintain the on-campus interviewing "funnel" to BigLaw despite the recent survey of 5000 associates finding that 59% of "top-ten" law school grads plan to leave BigLaw jobs within 2 years while other data indicates that 80% of the legal needs of the least wealthy 45,000,000 of us are unmet?
.
Do you think that there have been and will continue to be positive changes and improvements in the delivery of legal education?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

August 8, 1989

HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
Cambridge, Massachusetts 01938

OFFICE OF THE DEAN

Mr. Ronald Fox
Harvard Law School
Pound 310

Dear Ron

Many thanks for your recent gift to the Law School Fund. I appreciate your support of the School's annual giving program.

With best wishes

Sincerely,
/s/ Bob
Robert C. Clark
Dean

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

August 14, 1989

MEMORANDUM
TO; The File
FROM: Ron Fox
RE: Meeting with Dean Robert Clark

On Wednesday, August 9, 1989, at 11:30 A.M., I met with Dean
Robert Clark. He told me that he had made some decisions about restructuring and that I was not likely to be pleased. June Thompson would no longer be in admissions and would be full time in placement and there was also going to be an appointment of a new director of counseling. He mentioned that he did not know what I did in my job, although he had seen one letter that I had written and he thought it was very good. He had decided that it was not cost effective to have a 8/10 position devoted solely to the 6 to 8 people who were interested in public interest, therefore, my position was being eliminated as well as the position of my assistant (Dana Bullwinkel] who is about to enter graduate school).

I asked him to clarify whether or not that meant that I had been fired. He said that that was putting it too bluntly: my position was being eliminated. He said that he did not know how long I had been working at the law school. I was not being told that I had to leave the next day. When the administrative dean, Simone Reagor, returns from vacation, I would talk to her about the details.

When I asked him whether he had mentioned that there was going to be a new position, new director of counseling, he said that was the case, and that it was a position for which I would not be considered. (It now appears that this new position was created by the half of Mark Byers, the career counselor for the law school, that was assigned to the Placement Office and the other half of his time that was assigned to the Counseling Office under the Dean of Student's Office and Mark has been told that he can apply for this job but that he should be looking elsewhere in the event he does not get it.)

I had prepared a memorandum for him and had attached to it some of the material I had written over the last year and a half on public interest career planning and placement problems and issues at the law school and my suggestions and proposals. I gave it to him and told him that if he wanted to discuss any aspect of the material, I would be prepared to do so.

I left the office about 11:37 A.M.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

14 March 1990

PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CAREER PLANNING CENTER
955 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

Ronald W. Fox Tel: (617) 868-6669
Executive Director Fax: (617) 876-0203

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE STUDENTS OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL

I first want to say that my six years spent directing the public interest career activities at Harvard Law School was the most positive, rewarding and satisfying professional experience I have had since leaving the law school in 1963. I talked, wrote to, and learned from, intelligent, talented, concerned, responsible, committed people - students, staff of the law school, alumni/ae, other lawyers, and career planning professionals at other law schools. I also publicly want to let you all know how much I appreciate your personal visits, kind words and public statements in my support. Your actions made a stressful time more comfortable and gave me the reason, strength, encouragement and confidence to found the Public Interest Law Career Planning Center which will assist law students and lawyers who want to pursue careers in public interest, human services and government.

I came to the law school to direct the public interest career and placement activities after 15 years working in private practice and with many non-profit organizations trying to increase the quality and quantity of legal services delivered to people with low and moderate income. It appeared to me that Harvard Law School believed that it had an obligation to make careers in public interest law a realistic option for its graduates. And, in fact, over the next three years I received approval to establish the IL Public Interest Career Workshop; was given funding to publish the Public Interest Directory; was given the time to assist in the development of "Opportunities in Public Interest Law"; was encouraged to solicit $300,000 from an alumnus, Kenneth Montgomery, `28, for a public interest summer grant program which he generously funded; was given the time to establish a Task Force on Public Interest Law of the National Association for Law Placement; and was afforded the opportunity to give advice and guidance to about 100 individuals in each class and many alumni/ae.

I was impressed by the depth of commitment to public interest within the student body. I talked to students, analyzed class lists and read surveys that confirmed my findings that 40% of each class were interested in pursuing public interest careers. A study of one class revealed that by the time of graduation, 40% of its members had attended public interest workshops and/or devoted substantial time to public interest law either during the summer or in a clinical course. I spent many hours listening to students and providing information to allay their fears and to counter pressures from peers, the law school, family, and society in general to take positions they did not want. In addition, I received frequent calls and visits from anguished alumni/ae wanting to leave jobs in large firms they found boring and/or in conflict with their values. Yet every year, upon graduation, over 90% of the class take positions with large law firms representing commercial institutions and others in the wealthiest 1% of the society that the legal profession serves well. At the same time the rest of the society, 247 million people, are either totally unable to afford legal services if they have a housing, health, employment, discrimination or family problem, or, if they are indigent, only able to have a lawyer at no cost to them for one out of every fourteen of these legal problems. I refer to this factual situation as the "Crisis in Public Interest Law."

Many of you presently at the school as well as those who have recently graduated recognized that much of fault for, and the responsibility for remedying, the lack of diversity of career choices of graduates of the law school lay within the law school itself. You questioned 1) the curriculum's reliance on commercial cases, 2) the high cost of attending the law school accompanied by approval of higher student debt 3) the second-class status of the clinical program, 4) the preference given to large firms in the hiring process by the allocation of a disproportionate amount of staff time and resources to a recruiting process dominated by these firms and held in the fall when few other legal institutions know their future legal hiring needs, and by the failure to examine in depth negative aspects of such firms, especially the many student complaints of discrimination and unfair treatment 5) the failure of the law school to challenge the "prevailing wisdom" generalizations based on flawed assumptions, such as "Work in large firms is intellectually stimulating and prestigious and one receives the best training there," "Grades are very important in obtaining any job," "There are no jobs in public interest and even if there were, most students can not afford to take them because of the amount of their debt," "The work in public interest areas is boring, routine, uncreative and unimportant", "There is no training in public interest jobs" and "It is important that you find a job and become an employee rather than going out and creating your own institution" 6) the failure to provide adequate staff and resources for students and alumni/ae looking for career advice 7) the indifference and lack of availability of most of the faculty for career and job advice.

In early 1988, I requested funds from June Thompson, the Director of Placement, for additional staff and resources needed to create a Career Development Division in the Placement Office. Because of her basic disagreement with me about the existence of a crisis and her belief that there was little need for career advice generally and public interest career counseling specifically, the request was rejected. In April, 1988, I submitted a proposal through the Dean's Office requesting that a Career Development Center outside of the Placement Office be established to offer guidance to students, staff, faculty, alumni and others on public interest and many other less accessible and less familiar careers. I know of no staff or faculty meetings called to review the proposal, to discuss career issues, to debate differences in orientation or to set goals and priorities. No written responses were ever sent about the proposal and in early August. 1988, I heard indirectly that a decision had been reached - nothing would be done.

In April, 1989, after two very unsatisfactory meetings with June Thompson, I again renewed my request to the Dean's Office for the establishment of a Career Development Center. At about the same time I proposed the creation of a Center for the Delivery of Legal Services in the Public Interest which would coordinate research and activities on the "crisis" throughout the law school, including placement, career planning, the counselling center, financial aid, and the alumni/ae office. I inquired about the status of the proposals weekly. No staff or faculty meetings were ever called to review the proposals and I received no written response.

On July 1, Robert Clark became the dean and on August 9, 1989, two days after my return from vacation I was told to make an appointment to see him. At the meeting, after I introduced myself, he informed me that although he did not know what I did, he did know that it was not cost effective to have a four day a week position devoted to public interest when only six to eight people were affected so he was eliminating my position and that of my assistant, Dana Bullwinkel. He said that in our place a full-time staff assistant would be hired who would report to June Thompson and counsel students in all areas of the law, not just public interest.

The school lacks, and seriously needs, a well-supported, well-staffed, well-publicized, career development office and a public interest career center. I regret not having been given the opportunity to establish these offices but I remain optimistic. I believe that the law school will in the near future come to grips with the crisis. I do not think that it will ignore the imbalanced and inappropriate diversion of 90% of its graduates to the representation of 1% of the population. I do not think that it will want to be considered an irrelevant factor in the search for equality of access to the justice system. I am optimistic because so many of you spoke out this fall demanding more support, resources and guidance on the many varied public interest careers. I also want to express to all of you my deepest respect for the responsible actions you have taken in support of those who want to pursue legal services for those who need them the most. Because of your untiring efforts, your organizing, your factual and reasoned responses, your requests and demands, and your persistence, you have made many aware of the concerns of students and issues that had previously gone unrecognized. You have provided encouragement not only to students here but to students at other law schools and untold lawyers and college students considering a career in public interest law.

Your involvement is not only important, it is critical and necessary. Almost all of the significant progress that Harvard Law School has made and most of the programs that have been developed in the last fifteen years in the area of public interest career planning and placement have resulted from student demands. The creation of the public interest committee by the new dean with a broad mandate to review the role of public interest within the law school is a recent example. We are truly in the midst of a crisis which will not be resolved while you are in law school. How you respond to it in law school, however, may determine how you respond to it throughout your entire legal career. Your actions this fall have given many people reason to be optimistic. Continued best wishes in your efforts.

Sincerely,
/s/Ron
Ronald W. Fox

I had the opportunity and the privilege yesterday to make a presentation entitled "Think Small: Learning About and Locating Positions in Small Law Firms" for the New York State Bar Association. About 30 who registered were "live" in the "studio" at the law office of Lauren Wachtler, the chair of the Committee on Lawyers in Transition. An additional 175 registered for the webcast

THE VIDEO OF THIS 110 MINUTE WORKSHOP IS NOW ACCESSIBLE ON-LINE HERE..

BEFORE YOU BEGIN, HOWEVER, READ BELOW!

IF YOU DECIDE TO VIEW IT, I SUGGEST YOU DO THE FOLLOWING:
1. PAUSE THE VIDEO AS IT BEGINS;
2, CLICK THE ATTACHMENT ICON AFTER "HANDOUT #1 SUGGESTED READING ";
3. DO THE READING AND THE EXERCISES; AND THEN.
4, WATCH THE VIDEO

I initially talk about how we got to this point (my 50th year in the legal profession) where the vast majority of the public are unable to obtain the services of a lawyer and the vast majority of lawyers are dissatisfied. (I quote from the recent American Bar Foundation "After the JD" press release indicating that 59% of the associates from what they refer to as the "top ten law schools" intend to leave their present large firm employers within 2 years and that those in firms of greater than 250 lawyers are less satisfied than their counterparts in smaller firms.)

I state my belief that the culprit are the law schools which funnel their students to BigLaw through on-campus interviewing and ignore those unable to be interviewed and, in the process, neglect the legal needs of the public by failing to teach skills, values and career planning and charging outrageous amounts for tuition, far greater than the worth of the services delivered. My experience in the last 25 years leads me to conclude that lawyers who are unhappy because they are unable to find employment or dissatisfied at the law firm the law school "placed" them in, will invariably suffer from a lack of self-confidence, self-respect and self-worth.

The second part of the program begins with making lawyers aware of one of the four fundamental values of the legal profession - the commitment of a lawyer to take a position consistent with his or her professional goals and personal values. I then suggest how to go about finding a position in a small firm pointing out that 66% of all lawyers in private practice are in firms of 5 or less lawyers. I advise that they choose and area of law, find out who does it, make contact with some to promote and market yourself, keep doing something and eventually accept a position likely to provide career satisfaction.

I also suggest that, as they implement this process, they might want to look at themselves as independent contractors and, rather than limiting themselves to jobs as employees, look for opportunities to work part-time for one lawyer, then one or two others until they are full time partners, associates or solos.

The program raised a number of issues. Whether or not you view the webinar, I invite you to comment and share what you think about these or any related topics: the legal needs of the public; the need for major restructuring of legal education; OCI and the funnel; dissatisfaction of lawyers in BigLaw; the lack of self-confidence of lawyers generally; the opportunities in small firms.

I HOPE YOU FIND THIS PROGRAM HELPS YOU IN YOUR SEARCH FOR CAREER SATISFACTION..

Ron Fox .

On Wednesday, September 16, 2009, from noon to 2pm (EDT), I will be doing a live webcast for the New York State Bar Association Committee on Lawyers in Transition entitled Think Small! Learning About and Locating Positions in Small Law Firms

"For many years, if not decades, there has been an intense focus on large law firms as if they represent the entire legal profession. The lack of openings within large law firms makes this a most appropriate time for lawyers and law students to realize that there are nearly unlimited options in small law firms. There are jobs; there are positions; there are openings!"

For more information and to register for this free program go to this NYSBA website..

Many of you are aware of LawShucks which has become well known for keeping track of the number of lawyers and staff laid off from BigLaw. Recently someone began to post his/her thoughts under the title of The Laid Off Diary

As I read the articles, I recognized that the diarist, although likely not having the background and experience of a career planner, had distilled in the various articles the essence and fundamentals of the approach I employ in helping lawyers make a transition from dissatisfaction or unemployment to, hopefully, a satisfying position.

I took excerpts from many of the posts in the diary and, with the approval of Law Shucks and its diarist, present them here. I think you will find what follows worth reading.

EXCERPTS FROM THE LAID OFF DIARY

Apple
It's so easy to have taken the path we did. Major in some bullshit liberal arts degree, whack through the LSAT for a few hours, get into a good law school, study two weeks before each final for an OPEN BOOK final, be wined and dined for two summers, wear nice suits and have the little numbers in our bank account go up and up.... but through all of this, did most of us actually stop and think about what we WANT to do? what our GOAL is?

Falling Forward
We are all entrepreneurs of life in some sense trying to find the idea that is a home run... Sure, there are some formula one race car drivers that were groomed from the age of 4 or gymnasts whose parents sent them to gymnastics training at the age of 6 but not all of us had our paths laid out in front of us like that. Moreover, even laid out paths might end up like the roll over bar and be a bust even though it seemed like a golden fail proof idea. For some, BigLaw seemed like a pig-in-shit perfect path for them but at the end of the day, it might just be the shit without the pig (er...well, you get the idea). Sure, our endeavor into BigLaw was costly (student loans, time spent and brain cells killed studying for the bar, and self-esteem and dignity lost through working in BigLaw), but let's try to learn from this lesson, move on, and fall forward

Valuation Model
It's simple logic. If you sacrifice X for Y, make sure Y is more valuable than X. It might be that BigLaw is your dream job, it is what gets you going in the morning, and it is more important to you than family (I'd hate to be you). But if it's not, make sure you know that. Make sure during the valuation of your life and the things in it, your model correctly reflects the true value of your job. And don't just use the blue book value or the value that other people tell you it has, be honest with yourself and use the value that correctly reflects whether it is a mint condition Maybach 57 or a beat up rusty piece of shit with rips in the sticky nylon seats that smells oddly of cat piss and cotton candy.

Laying Seeds
But everything I'm doing now makes me think about these damn bean stalks. I've called every partner, senior associate, recruiter, or professional contact that I've made since I've been laid off. They've all tried to help and give me advice but nothing has come to fruition. I've been following leads, trying to branch out, making new contacts, etc. Sometimes when I see a job opportunity, I work myself up over it and get the feeling "this is the job! this is it! I'm made!" but I either don't get the job or it turns out to be b.s.

Benefit
I will admit that I was able to benefit from my time in the slammer doing hard legal labor, which consisted of 60-70 hours of busy boring and unchallenging work, and that I am much more competent than most people I meet. I won't claim that I'm more competent than my peers who worked in TinyLaw because they may have an expertise that I do not have because they worked in TinyLaw (e.g. a trial lawyer at a plaintiff's firm has much more trial experience than most BigLaw trial lawyer) but I do believe that I at least sound pretty damn sophisticated and it comes from 1) being able to talk out of my ass flawlessly, and 2) working on sophisticated deals in BigLaw.

Journey
When I first started writing to you, I did it because I was 1) fed up with BigLaw; 2) bored; 3) enjoy bitching and thought you'd like to hear about it; and 4) wanted to tell people about the "real" truth about BigLaw (or at least as I perceived it). But I've discovered that this has now become a diary of my journey and transformation as just another "lawyer" into... I'd like to cross over to business and do something creative but I have to admit, it's difficult not to just fall back into being a "lawyer" because that's what I know and that's how the world sees me. But now I have to break through that image and reinvent myself that is both in the legal world and in the business/entrepreneurial world. Will this diary be as moving as the Motorcycle Diaries? I don't presume to think I can move the world the same way Che has, but I hope I can at least shift my career and hopefully business people will stop thinking of us as boring losers. and besides, all I have is a scooter. The journey begins

Networking, Not Netwhoring
We know why networking is important-only 5-10% of jobs are advertised, it never hurts to have someone higher up pull strings for you, and blah blah blah But, it's HOW you network.

Let's Do Lunch
At associate development lunches at the firm, we were told to find a niche practice which most of the time resulted from happening upon an assignment that required us to do about 30 hours of mind numbing research on a boring or obscure part of the law and then being the "go to" person every time that issue came up. We were actually encouraged to seek out mind-numbing work and "fall" into that niche practice instead of CHOOSING a practice area or niche that made us tick. Not very encouraging. Shouldn't we first find out what makes us tick and then seek out a position or build one around what we are interested in? Are lawyers that afraid to go after what they want that they are willing to hang their hat on any random ass nail they happen to find sticking out of a wall and 30 years later, still hang on that same damn rusty nail?

Bid-ness Development
how am I getting all these CEOs and managing directors and founders to meet with me or invite me to lunch (and more than once) or coffee or to their offices or call me or give me a standing invite to lunch if I'm ever in their city? I can't teach you. Either you're social or you're not. Either your extroverted or you're not. Either you can sell yourself as someone interesting enough that someone will want to talk to you or you can't. Either you're creative on how to reach out to these people and get in front of them or you're not. But I can say that it gets easier as your Rolodex expands because then people start introducing you to their network.

Journalists of the legal media could be a force in correcting decades of law school misplacement.

I just read the most recent of the plethora of articles focusing on placement offices and what they are doing for law students during this unique "challenging" "chill" inducing situation where more and more large law firms are withdrawing from on-campus interviewing and not hiring students for summer and permanent positions.

I quickly recognized thirteen issues NOT considered in this article (to a great extent applicable to another such article.)

1, Isn't the use of the word "firm"misleading if it refers to the few firms (only 10%) with > 100 lawyers?

2. Who created the "box' that LS students have to think outside of and why?

3. Were the few firms able to enter the "box" providing positions desired by LS students.

4. Were the few firms able to enter the "box' providing positions through which students could serve legal needs of the public.

5. What are the goals, values & hopes of LS students?

6. What careers do LS students envision upon graduation?

7. What percentage of LS students want positions in regional firms, smaller firms, local firms, or government jobs,"

8. Are there summer paid positions for law students in "popular" cities in firms of < 6 lawyers? .

9. What is the process to go through to find these unadvertised positions?

10. What percentage of LS students want to go solo & not be employees?

11. Has the LS prepared the students to practice solo or in firms of < 6 lawyers?

12. When the economy improves, do LS expect to again funnel students back into the "box"?

13. Why is this concern one for the career staff? Why aren't the LSDeans and faculty being interviewed?

How many other examples can you find where the legal media ignored the fundamental issues and concerns of law students in the areas of career planning and professional development?

For information on the genesis of these posts and on who "Debra" is, click here and read the intro to "Debra and Ron Post 1."

 

Ron: Would you counsel women law students toward or away from BigLaw?

 

Debra: In my opinion, as I said in Post 1, training, opportunity, career development and networking are far better in BigLaw, even with all its shortcomings. Women, like men, need it; it needs us.  Like every other business institution, law firms need and benefit from women among their leaders.

 

Ron:  I am sure that they do but the issue is the distribution of scarce resources (women lawyers) where society most needs them (and here would be the key place in which we would have a difference of opinion - more later).

 

Debra:  Women lawyers are not scarce resources.  My understanding is that in excess of 50% of law school grads are in fact women.  Society needs us in plenty of places, to be sure, but there are enough of us to go around and to represent more than a tiny percentage of the leadership in big firms.

 

Ron:  Boy do I disagree.  They are a "scarce resource."  As I have mentioned often, 95% of the women (and the men) who have graduated from "selective" law schools (not the best, just the ones difficult to get into) start out overrepresenting the 1% wealthiest of society while most of society has no access to lawyers.

 

Debra:  Your comment doesn't seem responsive to the scarce resources point.  Women - and, for that matter, men - may be scarce resources in the public interest sector, but that is an allocation issue, not a resource constraint.  There are plenty of lawyers in the US and plenty of law students in US law schools.

 

Ron: The fundamental question is what women (and men) law students envisioned and wanted to do with their legal training. I spoke to the entering class at Notre Dame Law School. I asked about their career plans. The plurality wanted to represent women and children. To coin a phrase "What Do Women Want?

 

What if the answer is that a majority want to represent women, children and men in human and civil rights areas such as housing, education, family, healthcare, environmental, employment discrimination, plaintiff injury and gay rights?

 

Debra:  I think it's sexist and incorrect to presume women have different goals than men in pursuing careers in the law.  Like men, women come in all shapes and sizes, and our goals run the gamut.  Many men no doubt want to practice in human and civil rights areas such as housing, education, family, healthcare, environmental, employment discrimination, plaintiff injury and gay rights, just as many women want instead to be business lawyers, judges, venture capitalists and what have you.  We have to take great care not to make sweeping generalizations about anyone's goals or talents based on gender, color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.  I'm sorry to sound like a political tract here, but I see too much jumping from the specific to the generic where women and minorities are concerned.  It's not fair or sensible to make assumptions for these reasons - a fact of which I remind myself every time I'm tempted to disdain stay-at-home moms!  :)

 

Ron:  I referred to women because our original subject had been about women so I continued to use them as the subject.  You are correct that men certainly want to practice in human and civil rights. But for years I have used a form which allows clients to select a variety of areas of practice that appeal to them. I would πhave to say that more women chose family and divorce and more men chose owning a professional sports team ( - :

 

Debra: Might you have some adverse selection going on here? If your base group features a plurality of people who don't want to be BigLaw or business lawyers in the first place, these practice area choices may be a foregone conclusion.  Or maybe you're seeing the unsurprising results of all the pressure to choose "humane/girly" areas that many women feel from firms, law schools, parents, the whole white male power structure that permeates our society.  Or maybe I'm just a feminist baby-boomer with a real fire in her belly who doesn't want to admit that her younger sisters feel differently in larger numbers than they once did.  :)

 

Ron: You are probably quite correct here. Much of my efforts have had the label of "public interest" attached to them and many of those seeking my advice would likely be predisposed to such areas. Again, what I would like to see is a massive restructuring of legal education so that law students (women and men) make informed choices about what they want to do after graduation.

 For information on the genesis of these posts and on who "Debra" is, click here and read the intro to "Debra and Ron Post 1."

 

Ron: When I began to work as the public interest adviser at Harvard Law School in 1983, I knew that there were thousands of capable lawyers who represented those truly needing legal services, what we referred to as the underrepresented in society. Students had no way of knowing that this was the case. What I did was to create a new public interest category "private public interest law firms", contacted hundreds of such lawyers across the country, and list them in the Public Interest Directory I edited in 1986.Quite soon, Harvard law School students were choosing summer positions with them and eventually taking permanent positions.

 

The reason so many law students at selective law schools take positions with BigLaw is not that it is a more satisfying option for them. It is simply that BigLaw has convinced the law schools to take your position that it is just too difficult to find better placements for their students (of course it helps that the recruiters for BigLaw wine and dine and provide great resorts for lovely social events for law school career planning staff at the annual NALP conferences).

 

Debra: All true, but I continue to dispute the "shunted" theory, and I continue to be certain that law students without the gumption to resist wining, dining and social events as they seek to make career decisions are highly unlikely ever to make good lawyers - particularly in the public interest arena.  I also wonder how many better or more satisfying options there are - truly - for rookie lawyers.  There are plenty of rookie MBAs, college grads and other entrants to the work force also on the hunt for careers and, as we've discussed above, very few companies and even fewer nonprofits are actually hiring untrained beginners.

 

I don't think the fundamental educational question is what law students envision and want.  That's a personal question each individual has the right to answer for himself, but I think the fundamental educational question is what do we need, as a society, from our lawyers.

 

Ron: I agree.  I agree. I agree.

 

Debra: In my view, Karl Llewellyn had the right answer to this question.  In a 1942 speech given in the context of there being little call for lawyers and "no pervading appreciation that law skills can be mobilized to serve" in the war effort, Llewellyn spoke of the special skills of lawyers and the risks of viewing lawyering as "mere monopoly of the knowledge of law" rather than as "vision and sense of the whole, and skills in finding ways, smoothing friction, handling men in any situation, with speed, with sureness. . . .a craft of doing and getting things done with the law."  That's what I think society should demand of lawyers and what law schools should prepare lawyers to offer.

 

Ron: That may take only one year of law school. Take a look at the mission statement of Stanford Law School and perhaps a number of other law schools. What is a fundamental provision and one of the fundamental values of the legal profession - serve the legal needs of the public. We have had twenty years of "selective" law schools funneling 95% of their graduates to BigLaw to represent the 1% of the wealthiest of our society. I believe that is contrary to the public interest. In fact, I wonder if the government should guarantee or provide any benefit for loans that go to those attending a law school that permits that distribution of its graduates. The fact that 80% or more of those attending these law schools do not envision working for BigLaw is just an added bonus ( - :

 

You and I differ here on a fundamental point. You suggest that each individual is free to make his or her own choice and is solely responsible for that decision. That ignores so many of the factors that pressure law students. We all know (I think) that law schools have never tried to control their costs which have far outstripped the rise in the cost of living. We also know (I think) that the cost could immediately be reduced by one-third by eliminating the useless third year. We know that it is only BigLaw that is given access to law students as the only game that can make (or was able to make) commitments 18 months in advance. We also know that the debt burden on law students when combined with the offers of BigPay from BigLaw leads many of them to believe that BigLaw is the only "reasonable" choice. In so many ways the law school "educated" law students that BigLaw was the place to go (in part because of the indifference of faculty.

 

Debra:  I must argue with the notion of "funneling."  Again, anyone who allows himself to be funneled into a career option he considers unacceptable is not someone I'd bet on to be a capable, zealous advocate - in any setting.  Starting one's legal career in BigLaw is a proven method for gaining experience and developing and honing practical skills and work habits.  For some, it's a career; for others, it's a useful first step; for still others, it's no doubt a bad fit.

 

I remain staunch in believing that it is up to each individual to choose for himself.  I was not funneled into BigLaw by the University of Chicago Law School or by anything or anyone else.  I made a conscious, informed choice, based on my interests and skills, to be a business lawyer.  Call me coldhearted if you like, but I have no sympathy for anyone who lets himself be funneled into doing something he does not want to do.  We are in charge of our careers, our happiness and our choices; it's short-sighted and adolescent to attempt to blame someone or something else when we choose poorly.

 

If 80% don't want to join BigLaw, then they shouldn't.  Not only would they presumably be happier elsewhere, BigLaw would have to make some needed structural changes if the well dried up and firms actually had to work to attract new grads.

 

Furthermore, neither I nor my firms represented only the top 1% of the wealthiest in our society.  Our clients ran the gamut from big to small to individual, and the businesses I helped clients take public, buy, sell, expand & finance created jobs and opportunities for hundreds of thousands of people.  This is clearly in the public interest.  The law firms I worked for as a lawyer, and with as a client, also funneled (to use that term more acceptably) millions of dollars, in time & money, to a huge variety of charities and pro bono causes.  I think it is just as misguided to suggest business and the lawyers who support it are contrary to the public interest as it would be to assert that all solo practitioners are saints dedicated to furthering the public interest.

 

Ron:  I realize that I have made some negative generalizations about BigLaw and that there are cases where they are incorrect but I think it is fair to say that BigLaw represents BigBusiness and many small firms represent LittleIndividuals. My worldview, of course, is that it is more important to take on the cases of those with claims for violations of their human and civil rights than to work to help form successful businesses but we need both and I am simply trying to level the playing field. I appreciate that BigLaw and BigBusiness contribute to charitable causes but prefer that lawyers who wish to have the opportunity to devote 100%of their time to such efforts. (I don't need to get into the stories of BigLaw associates who described being told they could not appear at a critical hearing for a pro bono clients because of what seemed to them a meaningless chore demanded of them by a partner.)

 

Debra:  There are certainly partners who make pro bono involvement difficult (just as there are multitudinous associates with no interest whatsoever in pro bono work), but all of the firms I've worked for as a lawyer or with as a client have healthy pro bono programs and are, in fact, casting about for associates willing to devote time to NPO boards, fund-raising efforts, case administration, etc.  We are totally in agreement, however, that lawyers who wish to have the opportunity to devote 100% of their time to such efforts do not belong in BigLaw.

For information on the genesis of these posts and on who "Debra" is, click here and read the intro to "Debra and Ron Post 1."

 

Ron: As I have mentioned often, 95% of the women (and the men) who have graduated from "selective" law schools (not the best, just the ones difficult to get into) start out overrepresenting the 1% wealthiest of society while most of society has no access to lawyers.

 

Debra:  I'd like to see the data supporting that statement, which seems unlikely to me.  Even if you're correct about that, however, there are plenty of lawyers in the US and plenty of law students in US law schools.  Different societal incentives - like decent paychecks, prestige, availability of training, etc. - would benefit public interest law positions just as they would benefit teachers, social workers, day care workers, nurses and every other underappreciated career in our overly money-focused society.  But the choice of where to devote one's career efforts remains, thankfully, a personal one.  Requiring anyone to pursue a career path he does not want to pursue is as wrong and short-sighted as barring him from going after one he does want to pursue.

 

Ron: I think that the law students/lawyers that I know most intimately are those that graduated from law school since 1986. From 1984 to 1994 I spoke to individual students, made presentations to classes of students, spoke at student conferences, worked with NALP career planners and spoke to faculty at law schools. There is no doubt in my mind that upwards of 80% of law students at the selective law schools had no interest in working in BigLaw.  Much of what you criticize associates for can be attributed to the reality that so many of them never wanted to be there in the first place.

 

Debra:  Then what on earth were they doing there?  Who held a gun to their heads?  If they didn't want to be there, it was incumbent on them to be elsewhere or to make the best of the situation in which they put themselves, not to whine about having made a poor choice.  (I feel compelled to note as well that they were happy enough to collect their outsized paychecks.)

 

Why would BigLaw have any responsibility whatsoever to tailor itself to the whims of a bunch of highly paid whiners without either the long-term commitment to the practice or the brains, courage and initiative to choose what they actually wanted in the first place?

 

Ron: That is the subject of my book and many others. The fault begins with the deficient education system (public primarily) which has failed miserable in teaching critical thinking but has done a magnificent job in training kids to be lemmings. Just do what you are told to do to get to the best college, do the best to get to the best law school, do the best to get to the best law firm. Hold on, I hate it here, what happened?

 

Debra: All I can say here - and I say it with all due respect - is baloney.  I remain certain that anyone without the strength of character, initiative, critical thinking skills and balls to make his or her own decisions will never make a good lawyer - regardless of where he or she starts out after law school.  My law school classmates seemed to have no trouble thinking for themselves 30 years ago, and I have reason to believe (based on my own two 20-something children and the majority of their friends) that young people are no less capable of doing so today.

 

Ron:  My book, Lawful Pursuit, Careers in Public Interest Law, is a guide on how to avoid those aspects of law school that will pressure you into a job in BigLaw and divert you from what you hoped to do when you entered law school. Those aspects include no mission of the law school, no teaching of skills, no teaching of values, no teaching of career planning, a massive on-campus interview program, no feedback about the dissatisfaction of alumni/ae in BigLaw and high debt.

 

Debra: This is great.  I'm sure your book is very helpful.  To suggest, however, that the current system is some sort of evil cabal seeking to swallow innocents who have no opportunity to escape its clutches is disrespectful to the intelligence and free will of law students.

 

Obviously, the BigLaw approach is not for everyone, but it's specious, I think, for anyone to slam BigLaw for its failure to babysit with people unwilling to do what it takes to succeed there.  And, honestly?  It wasn't that hard.  With a true interest in the work and a zeal to learn, improve and excel, it was quite doable, as well as highly rewarding and satisfying, even for a woman like me who was (and is) also a wife and the mother of two kids.

 

Ron: While there were some for which this was a good choice, over the years there were surveys and articles about the extraordinary high degree of dissatisfaction of associates in BigLaw.

 

Debra:  You know the media - it loves a negative story more than a positive story every time.  In addition, survey results can easily be skewed by the nature of the questions asked.  There is always room for improvement in any institutional setting.

 

It is also a characteristic of post-baby-boomer generations that they are not willing to work as hard as baby boomers.  This is a healthy thing in many ways, but the generational differences in BigLaw between management and new hires remain large and largely unresolved.  I've worked with hundreds of people who, all things considered, were - and are - content with their BigLaw choice.  The overall discontent may well be overstated, however virulent in any individual person.  Even if it's not overstated, it would hardly be surprising, would it, if you're correct about 80% of post-86 LS grads not wanting to be in big firms in the first place (and, I guess, there just for the money).

 

Ron: I am confident restating that the percentage of those deeply unhappy at BigLaw has been extraordinarily high over the last two decades (and probably higher today during the current economic downturn.) I also agree with you that there are probably many who are content at BigLaw but, as you have said, it's not about them. It's about the needs of society. Fortunately, there is a coincidence and overlap of those who are dissatisfied and those who want to help deliver legal services to the public.

 

I spoke to the entering class at Notre Dame Law School. I asked about their career plans. The plurality wanted to represent women and children. Does any law school ask them (or the men)? Does any law school care? What if the answer is that a majority want to represent women, children and men in human and civil rights areas such as housing, education, family, healthcare, environmental, employment discrimination, plaintiff injury and gay rights?

 

Debra: I question the notion that a plurality of law students have the career goals you've described.  They may say they want to represent women and children (although that surprises me too), but I doubt they mean in the direct representation way you've outlined.  If they do, they're not likely to find satisfaction because that's a very romantic - and quixotic - notion of how to improve the lot of women and children in the world.

 

Ron: And yet that's the career path that thousands of lawyers around the country have followed. In fact, I was a divorce lawyer from 1970 to 1990 but thought that the adversary system was a totally inappropriate way of handling a divorce so in the mid-70's we started something called divorce mediation. Others in legal services and in organizations have taken on major reform in areas such as gay marriage.

 

Debra:  It's a fine career path for people who have developed the necessary judgment, perspective and experience to do it capably.  My question is where you think new lawyers will develop those qualities and gain that experience.  On the job without supervision?  Yikes!

 

The creation of jobs, the formulation and implementation of sensible and beneficial education, healthcare, housing, daycare, environmental and other policies, and the zealous representation of victims of civil rights abuses cannot be effectively undertaken by green law school grads with no experience of business, economics, the means of production or the mechanics of capital.

 

Moreover, while many of the lawyers who have followed this career path have undoubtedly helped individuals, which is great, I am certain that to effect lasting reform, it's necessary to have lawyers working systemically in addition to one plaintiff/client at a time.

 

Ron: That is correct so much of what I have written is focused on the deficiencies of legal education.  I urge is the restructuring of legal education so that students are taught by qualified instructors and perform the skills they need during law school. With that training, they will have the confidence (that few graduates have) to enable them to begin to look for mentors and support to represent individuals on graduation.

 

Debra:  No disagreement here.  Law schools could do a much better job.  But whether it's apprenticeship of the kind you describe or of the BigLaw variety, new grads must still be exposed to a variety of clients, colleagues, cases, opinions & practical experiences in order to develop the judgment that characterizes all capable practitioners.

 

BigLaw is an obvious and proven place to gain this exposure, as we've discussed.  With initiative and patience, new grads could, I'm sure, also develop it elsewhere.  I have my doubts, however, that new grads without enough initiative to make good choices for themselves or to take advantage of what BigLaw has to offer them in this regard will somehow manage to do what it takes to research, identify, seek and find it in the big outside world.

 

Law schools could do a much better job of grounding students with this sort of knowledge, but they can't provide the perspective and judgment that come from practical experience with a variety of business clients and legal and financial colleagues.  Neither can practicing solo.  Small firms that do sophisticated legal work and large firms are the only places I know of where this kind of experience is readily available to anyone who wants - and is willing to do what it takes - to grab it.

 

Ron:  With the media laser focus on what happens in BigLaw, what do we really know about the abilities of the hundreds of thousands who practice in firms of 5 or less lawyers?

 

Debra:  Speaking from the standpoint of a business client, we have neither the time nor the money nor the inclination to interview, discern the relative skills of, or try out any of these thousands.  If they can find a way to demonstrate their fitness and suitability to handle our matters - as the "BigLaw refugee" firms can and do - we'll hire them, but otherwise we don't need them.  Even if they're superior to BigLaw, which has not been my experience, the cost-benefit ratio of determining that is out of whack for a business client.  Going with BigLaw's proven track record for delivering results and negotiating mutually beneficial cost & service arrangements with them is the efficient, cost-effective choice, as well as the path of least resistance.

 

From the standpoint of a new LS grad, how is he going to determine outside the ranks of BigLaw where the mentoring and training will be first-rate and where it will falter?  Say what you will about BigLaw, virtually no one who succeeds and remains in that environment is a poor lawyer with only one area of experience.  The same cannot be said of every lawyer practicing on his own.  It would be a craps shoot to pick a mentor from among those ranks.

 

Let's not forget, too, that slick ambulance chasers do as much to harm the reputation of the profession as smug BigLaw fatcats - and there are more of the former.  A knee-jerk bias against BigLaw is as flawed as a knee-jerk bias for it.

 I met Debra Snider on Twitter in a conversation about women & large law firms.  That conversation led to a spirited email discussion, which we've broken down into four blog posts.

After a distinguished 21-year legal and business career, Debra became an author and speaker.  As a lawyer, she handled corporate and securities transactions for two large law firms and a real estate syndication company, then was Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Chief Administrative Officer at a $20 billion publicly held commercial finance company.  Thus, she has the perspective of someone who has been an associate at a large firm, an in-house staff lawyer with management responsibilities, a partner at a large law firm, and a client of many law firms, large and small.

Debra is the author of the well-received novel A Merger of Equals, which is set in the business world.  She has also published two business books: The Productive Culture Blueprint (an American Bar Association Career Resource Center publication that offers a blueprint, complete with case study, checklists and other practical tools and tips, for building sustainable strategic productivity into the in-house law department and enduring, effective relationships with outside law firms); and Working Easier, an organizational design toolkit.  Debra's website is loaded with free career and other resources in addition to more information about her books, her background and her popular speaking topics.

 

Ron: I was not expecting this from you: "IMO training, opportunity, career development & networking far better in BigLaw, even with all its shortcomings."

 

I have been advising lawyers for 25 yrs. Many of them were making a transition from BigLaw. During that time I heard so many stories of dissatisfaction (long hours, boredom, abuse, no training, no feedback, no responsibility, no creativity) that it led me to believe there was NO value to the experience in BigLaw.  Do you think that in BigLaw over the last 10 years (and especially now) there has been (will be) training, opportunity, career development and networking?

 

Debra: I absolutely believe there is superior training, opportunity, career development and networking in large law firms.  There is a great deal that those firms can and should be doing differently for both themselves and their clients, but they continue to be the places offering the best concentration of sophisticated legal work and fine legal minds.

 

Ron:  I wonder how that can be verified.

 

Debra: I thought this was self-evident, but since you ask, I'll give you my thinking.  I believe that good lawyers are characterized by the kind of judgment and knowledge that comes from exposure to and experience with a variety of matters for a variety of clients in a variety of industries, all supervised in the early years and informed in later years by a variety of experienced lawyers, whether senior associates or partners.  The breadth of the experiences is as important as the depth.  A volume shop is - in my opinion and based on my experiences as a rookie, an associate, a partner, and a client - the best place to find and take advantage of the necessary variety.  There are no doubt fine legal minds working on sophisticated legal matters outside large law firms, but the concentration of these in the large law firm context offers the variety of exposure and experience that is essential to developing breadth, depth and judgment quickly.  (More on all this below.)

 

Ron: Do you truly believe that the generic graduate of BigLawSchool who has taken a position with BigLaw is exposed to a "variety of clients" and receives a "variety of practical experiences"? I don't think so!!

 

Debra:  Then you are mistaken or misinformed.  I'll repeat - that experience and exposure are there for the taking. If the generic graduate does not find them, he is not looking.  Why on earth would big law firms hire and pay outlandish salaries to newbies if they had no intent to use them?  It defies logic to suggest they are merely evil cabals designed to turn innocents from public interest practice for no good business reason.

 

In my opinion and based on my experiences, and given my belief that concentration and variety of matters are the hallmark of practical lawyer training, the evidence in favor of BigLaw as an obvious and proven place to gain the exposure necessary to become a good lawyer is overwhelming, both as a fact and in theory.  The easiest place to find concentration and variety is a volume shop that considers it a responsibility to hire, train, and make money from new lawyers, and is betting the health of its long-term business on doing so.  Do you honestly think garden-variety nonprofits have the money, the interest, the responsibility or the ability to hire and train lawyers? Or, for that matter, do solo practitioners as a rule?

 

Ron:  I usually point out to clients the website of a friend who used to be with Proskauer who, for the last 30 years in a firm of 4 lawyers handles complex litigation.  I have also read stories over the years about the excellent legal work performed by a small group of lawyers who have left BigLaw for autonomy, higher income, more flexibility, etc.

 

Debra: I have no problem with small or solo practice as the second phase of a career.  I, too, know many such practitioners and they are terrific - thanks, I believe, to what their BigLaw training and experience added to their innate intelligence and skills.  Remember that I was a General Counsel, as well as a BigLaw associate and partner, so my experience is based not only on my own training, but also on my work with outside firms as their client.  While big firms were the best choices for labor-intensive matters that required a lot of lower-cost associates and paralegals to get the job done effectively and efficiently, "refugee firms," as we called the smaller outfits comprised of former BigLaw partners, did an excellent job for us on various other, equally complex, but less labor-intensive matters.

 

Our original conversation, however, was about lawyers going into small or solo practices right out of law school.  I can't imagine any client willing to hire such a newbie solo practitioner, no matter how intelligent, for any matter of consequence - business or personal.  A small firm populated by recent grads would be equally incompetent.

 

Ron:  I have two reactions.  The first is that the small firms that were formed from those who left BigLaw might be places where the training and opportunities for growth might be better.  While you make a good point about the difficulties or starting out as a solo, these small firms might be a far better option than a BigLaw firm.

 

Debra: If the partners in these small firms were committed to training rookie lawyers, and the firms had both the necessary variety of work and the time and the money to allocate to training, they would be wonderful options.  Some of them may well be, although the ones I know of haven't considered this approach to be economically feasible from the standpoint of the firm.  They have operated in this regard the way my law department at Heller operated.  We realized it was neither cost-effective nor appropriate from a corporate financial point of view for us to allocate Heller resources (dollars and staff time) to training new lawyers when we could easily hire experienced ones who could not only hit the ground running, but also bring with them knowledge of other clients and businesses.

 

As far as I know, there is nothing stopping small law firms that want to take on the responsibility for training rookie lawyers from recruiting them out of law schools.  If you're right that law students are aching for alternatives to BigLaw, these firms ought to do very well at law schools, even if they do have to offer reduced salaries.

 

Ron: Second, there are a number of areas of law and representation which are not the province of BigLaw such as plaintiffs in personal injury matters, tenants and cases against large corporations. Lawyers who want to represent these clients have no option of working for BigLaw. Those with claims in these areas have no option of being represented by BigLaw. The lawyer will either start on his own or work with and for a small firm. There is no evidence that any BigLaw lawyer is more competent to handle a police misconduct case than Michael Avery who has for his career been a solo or small firm lawyer. I could with a little research name hundreds of competent capable lawyers who have started out on their own or with one or two others.

 

Debra:  I'm sure you can.  But would you have hired any of them to represent you or any other client on Day 1 out of law school?  Surely not.  Lawyers who want to represent clients in the kind of matters you enumerate above have to be trained somewhere. Unsupervised on the job training is unfair to clients and probably unethical.  The problem with solo and small practices - and I agree that this is a societal problem - is that they rarely have the interest or the wherewithal to train rookies.  BigLaw won't train rookies specifically in these matters, but it may still be a viable option for 2-3 years, in that it will offer rookies the exposure and experience necessary to become able to think and operate like lawyers - not to mention giving them the paychecks that will allow them to reduce their debt burden and make it easier for them to step out on their own when they feel ready.  And, moreover, why not let small, solo and public interest outfits benefit from BigLaw's training nickel?

 

Perhaps you feel differently, but I would never entrust an important personal matter to an untrained lawyer.  If I were to get divorced, I'd want you, not some kid who's handled only a few cases.  And I'm not looking only for depth of experience when I engage a lawyer; I'm also looking for breadth of experience.  For instance, I've had huge problems even with experienced lawyers on residential real estate matters.  The work these lawyers do has been routinized - which is good because it keeps costs low - but they only know how to do what they do all the time, and even then only if it fits the mold.  For the 1-2 out of 10 situations that presented an unusual issue or otherwise didn't fit the routine, they were lost.  Absolutely lost.  I had far more ability to puzzle out the solutions than they did even though they had vastly more residential real estate experience.

 

Honestly, I don't think we have much disagreement here.  A good, experienced, thoughtful lawyer is just that regardless of how he or she got there.  The issue we're discussing is how best (most effectively and efficiently) to get lawyers there.

 

Ron:  Let's go back to that.  I don't know what you mean when you say that BigLaw is THE place where lawyers develop "the necessary judgment, perspective and experience."  Many of my clients have given me a different picture of life as an associate and junior partner at BigLaw, one that allows for very little decision-making authority, no room for creativity, no autonomy, no meaningful responsibility.

 

Debra:  The necessary training is there for the taking at big law firms.  Perhaps we have a different definition of how lawyers are trained.  In my opinion, training does not start with creativity, autonomy or decision-making.  It's also not about seminars, writing programs and other continuations of impractical law school tactics, although those do sometimes exist (and are typically ridiculed by associates) at big law firms.

 

Training starts with exposure, experience and responsibility.  Any BigLaw associate who's told you he had no meaningful responsibility has no clue what meaningful responsibility is for a rookie.  Let me give you an example.  One of the tasks I had as a corporate and securities newbie was due diligence.  It was my responsibility, for example, to review and schedule a company's loan agreements.  It would certainly have been possible to treat this job as a secretarial one and simply put factoids like loan amount, maturity date, collateral and the like into the little boxes for them on the schedule.  Instead, I used the opportunity to see how loan agreements were constructed, how one differed from another depending on the lender or the collateral or the loan purpose, how the covenants and notice and indemnification provisions worked, etc.  I asked my colleagues questions about the why's behind all this paper and verbiage.  I used my brain and the brains around me to turn this work into the learning opportunity it surely was.

 

Two points here: first, the opportunity was mine to recognize and take, not someone else's to highlight for me; second, many, many of the senior associates and partners I worked with did, in fact, highlight learning opportunities and happily made themselves available to help me learn and grow.  I did the same for every associate I ever worked with.  Within a year or two of approaching my "secretarial due diligence" tasks this way, I had plenty of client contact, decision-making authority, autonomy and room for creativity.  I was by no means alone or unusual in this regard.

 

One of the problems refugees from big firms suffer is, I think, a lack of understanding about how one goes about succeeding in that environment.  One of my partners used to say, "If they need help, they're not good enough."  That's obviously overstated, but it is reflective of a general attitude, and too many of the post-1985 or so law grads I saw, both as Hiring Partner and as a deal lawyer in the Corporate Department, were oddly passive about their own careers.  They seemed to expect a rewarding career to be delivered to their desks.  They had trouble with the truth that a rewarding career is something we must each identify and pursue for ourself.

 

Large law firms do not coddle.  Someone seeking to succeed needs to understand that the rules of the game require taking initiative, figuring out what kind of work he or she wants to do & going after pertinent assignments, demonstrating genuine interest in learning the craft, getting involved in recruiting and pro bono and firm committees and business development and all the other indicia of a full range of involvement, and so forth.

 

It is critically important at this time when there has been a decline in recruiting by the large law firms who have dominated campus interviewing to deemphasize employer outreach.

A school unable to attract sufficient employer responses adds to the students' frustration. Their self-esteem is diminished since they are not being considered by the firms courted by the school, apparently the ones who have the school's stamp of approval. Some career planners believe they are not using their talents and time to their own best advantage and that of their students. One said that 85% of her resources are devoted to employer outreach from which only 15% of her students found positions.

The goal of employer outreach by career staff is the scheduling of on-campus interviewers to supply students with the knowledge of where the jobs are.  Where there are a substantial number of firms recruiting on campus, many accept jobs they are not suited for because their decision making process is flawed. They are unaware of the breadth of their options and the importance of balancing priorities such as work satisfaction and high income.

Law school support for the emphasis on placement may come from the desire for positive recognition in the USNews's annual "Placement Success Rank" category. This rewards the schools that bring in the most firms and have the most graduates taking the highest paying positions the quickest.

What is the value of this professional degree? It varies. According to the USNews, "To the student, the value of a professional degree often is determined by its worth on the job market." For some it is just that, a way to earn a decent income. For others, the value is a sense of self-worth and satisfaction from having many options, autonomy and significant responsibility, or the opportunity to do "something that matters" to them. Others believe it provides the opportunity to contribute to the common good, to help those who without their assistance might never have a lawyer or to play a small part in bringing about social justice and equal access to the legal system.

The focus on employer outreach obscures the fact that most openings are publicized at the time employers have an immediate opening, not months in advance. As a consequence many organizations students might want to work for will not make their openings known early in the school year, in September, or even December and, more likely, not until after graduation. Furthermore, the way in which they will be publicized will probably be by word-of-mouth since estimates are that less than 5% of all jobs are advertised in writing.

Employer outreach fails to reflect the breadth of legal demographics at some schools and at other simply fails to attract sufficient employers. It needs to be deemphasized and replaced by career planning based on outreach within the law school community. The primary focus would be on educating students about their options, career planning methods and how to search for openings using self-directed employer outreach.

Rather than telling students "There are few jobs and we will try to place you", law schools should move in the direction that will support them most appropriately and "There are so many options and opportunities and we will teach you how to search for the one that will be the most satisfying for you, the one most consistent with your professional goals and your personal values."

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE IN THE BOSTON GLOBE

For law graduates, a public-service detour on road to success

By Rich Barlow, Globe Correspondent  |  April 27, 2009

 

With his degree from Harvard Law School due in June, Juan Valdivieso makes an attractive prospective hire, and last summer, he scooped up a postgraduation job offer from the white-shoe firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in his native Washington, D.C.

But as the recession deepens, budgets tighten - even at top-notch law firms. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius e-mailed Valdivieso last month that it would have to defer his employment for a year, until the fall of 2010. But the company threw him a lifeline: It would pay him a $60,000 stipend if he spent the year after graduation at an unpaid public service job. The 28-year-old is looking for work in an organization that will indulge his interest either in civil rights or consumer protection.

Paying people to offer help to public service groups may be a noble endeavor, but it also reaps a practical payoff.

The stipend system saves a bundle for such firms as Morgan, Lewis, where starting salaries average around $160,000, according to Harvard's assistant dean for career services, Mark Weber. It also allows them to hold onto promising future lawyers until a possible economic turnaround next year.

Meanwhile, students add a year of real-life work.

"Clients are, from what I understand, not so excited about having first-year associates without any actual experience working on their case," said Valdivieso.

Alyssa Minsky, who is graduating next month from Suffolk University Law School, has had her employment deferred with a stipend by Ropes & Gray. A psychology major in college with an interest in healthcare, she is interviewing for jobs in that field.

"I really do think it's a great opportunity," she said. "I hope to do healthcare law at the firm, so I think I'll have real exposure to healthcare issues."

Law firms have postponed hires in previous recessions, but the public-service stipends are unique, say Weber and James Leipold, executive director of the National Association for Law Placement, a career counseling, recruitment, and development group based in Washington, D.C.

Valdivieso said he knows of 20 to 30 fellow Harvard students (the graduating class numbers 575) who have had their employment postponed, and many of them have been offered stipends. Students at law schools around the country are getting the same offer, and while no one tracks precise numbers, the trend "is pretty widespread," said Leipold, with participants including such noted firms as Latham & Watkins, based in California, and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, based in New York.

Boston's Ropes & Gray has offered stipends to new hires and current associates who'd like to do a year in public service, according to a statement from the firm. Staff lawyers, whose starting salaries are $160,000, receive $60,000 and health insurance coverage; deferred hires get those benefits plus moving expenses, coverage of bar preparation and exam fees, and eligibility for a $20,000 advance, to be repaid after the public service.

The firm has a list of 35 approved service organizations but is open to lawyers and hired students arranging a year's work with other groups, the statement said. Eighty applicants have applied for placement with groups ranging from legal aid services in New York to a public defender's office in Hawaii.

Greater Boston Legal Services, which represents low-income people in civil cases, has seen its finances crushed by the recession, as have other public-interest groups, so getting some help on law firms' dimes is an attractive proposition, said executive director Robert Sable.

"We're in tatters financially because of this thing," he said. "These folks are showing up at just the time when we're having to reduce staff."

Weber's office, which estimates that 10 percent to 20 percent of Harvard's graduating students will be deferred by firms, sent a memo to the class last month to help them weigh options. A year in public service "can be seen as a tremendous opportunity" that will add luster to a student's resume, the memo counseled.

That's important, Weber said, because he predicts a coming boom for legal services when the economy recovers.

"There's a lot of litigation that hasn't taken place," he said. "There's a lot of regulatory work and a lot of appeals that aren't being done right now. So when that stuff picks up, people are going to be busy."

Getting paid to do good has some downside, however. Valdivieso has $60,000 in student loans to repay, and he had planned on a larger salary next year to help with that.

He's hoping to tap a Harvard program that helps students entering modest-paying jobs repay their loans, but that won't be enough, and he is considering moving in with his parents.

"I went from looking at potentially purchasing [a] new home to covering rent [and] covering health insurance," he said. But he is counting his blessings: He is single with no dependents.

At a time when a student may feel pressure to be the next Clarence Darrow to secure one of the dwindling number of jobs, Weber said graduates may have few options. "It's not like the next firm down the street is [hiring many lawyers]. . . . The issue here is making the best of a difficult situation," he said.

 

RON FOX COMMENT IN THE BOSTON GLOBE

There is another side to this story.

At the "selective" law schools there is a powerful "funnel" established by the law schools and maintained by large law firms (BigLaw) that has led for decades to as high as 95% of graduates taking BigLaw positions.

My experience, discussions with those in the legal community and material I have read leads me to believe that without the combined defects and pressures of legal education, a minority of these grads would want to work for such firms, preferring instead a variety of other options, including representing individuals, consumers, small businesses in small firms or even starting their own solo practice.

Not surprisingly, there have been frequent stories over the last 20 years about the high level of dissatisfaction among lawyers. This misplacement is partially to blame.

Another aspect of this is that for decades the public has had an urgent need for legal services. ABA studies indicate that only 20% of the legal needs of 45,000,000 low income people are met. The funneling of these law students to BigLaw continues to divert them from serving the public, the stated mission of many law schools such as Stanford Law School:

"Despite these advances, 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."

What is needed is primarily an overhaul of legal education: a reduction in cost by eliminating the wasted third year, teaching students the fundamental skills and values needed so they are prepared to practice law, making them aware of the options they have in SmallLaw/Solo, giving them genuine career advice and eliminating the funnel of on-campus interviewing.

 

LETTER TO THE EDITOR FROM STAFF AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL

This career choice is not a 'detour'

May 2, 2009

WE ARE writing to express dismay at the implication of your headline "For law graduates, a public-service detour on road to success" (Metro, April 27) and the tone of the corresponding article.

Your headline assumes that the only definition of success is working at a large law firm and that public service work is merely a detour. This could not be further from the truth.

We have worked with, and are continuing to work with, many Harvard Law School students and alumni dedicated to careers in public service. These students and graduates define success as satisfying work through which they can make a contribution to society.

Among our relatively recent graduates who opted for public service rather than the private sector are Julie Su, who won a MacArthur "genius" grant for her work freeing enslaved Thai garment workers; the cofounders of City Year, Alan Khazei and Michael Brown; and one young man who chose to serve the urban poor in Chicago upon graduating in 1991 - Barack Obama.

Fortunately, many of the delayed-start associates with whom we've been working understand that they have been presented with a wonderful opportunity to use their law degrees to help society - and, in some cases, been given more responsibility than they would likely have had as first-year associates at large firms.

You do a disservice to idealistic law students and lawyers everywhere by reinforcing the image of public service as somehow second class.

Alexa Shabecoff
Assistant dean for public service
Ellen Cosgrove
Dean of students
Harvard Law School
Cambridge

 

COMMENT BY RON FOX IN RESPONSE TO LETTER TO THE EDITOR FROM STAFF AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL

How do they say it, "Give me a break".

This letter to the editor from two staff persons at Harvard Law School is misleading.

Does anyone really think that Success at Harvard law School is defined as anything other than taking a job at BigLaw?

Open up the books and look at the jobs taken by HLS graduates over the last 25 years and you are likely to see that at graduation (or after a prestigious clerkship) approximately 95% will have taken jobs at BigLaw.

Think about one of the graduates mentioned, President Barack Obama. Of the many impressive comments made about him, one was that this Harvard law School graduate, the President of the Harvard Law Review did NOT, upon graduation, go to BigLaw but took a position with a small firm that represented individuals in civil rights and other personal matters. If Harvard Law School does not consider serving the public upon graduation as a detour, why was his career path considered so unique?

One of the reasons that Harvard Law School ranks so high in the annual flawed USNews ranking of law schools is its second highest ranking in the criterion for graduate employment. A significant factor of this criterion is the number of those employed at graduation. Since it is almost entirely only BigLaw which can know its needs far in advance, the prize goes to the law schools that send their students the quickest (for the most money?) to the biggest law firms.

(By the way, I recall an analysis I did of the first positions of HLS graduates from the classes of 1984-88. Of the 2500 after 3 years of legal education only FOUR (4) felt prepared to go out on their own and NOT become someone's employee. One of them was Alan Khazei, another graduate featured prominently in the letter.)

Success at Harvard Law School must therefore be defined by the law school (though not by the students) and, I assume, by other selective law schools as going to BigLaw. With that in mind, students at HLS taking positions with public service have good reason to think they are taking a detour.

 

I recently read about the gathering of law students from a number of law schools that are difficult to get into who have joined together to form Building a Better Legal Profession, (BBLP) which, according to its mission state, is "a national grassroots movement that seeks market-based workplace reforms in large private law firms".

I do not know whether this messsage was ever received by BBLP since as of this moment I have not received a response

I welcome your comments.

Ron

  

Hi

As a regular contributor to twitter, a blogger and one who has followed and commented on the activities of the BBLP, I suppose that qualifies me as one doing a story on BBLP.

During my five years (1984-89) as the public interest advisor at Harvard Law School and thereafter, I have observed the close working relationship between the selective law schools and BigLaw. I know how the law schools' deficiencies and defects work to, as I refer to it, "funnel" their students to BigLaw.  If you would like to read a few things I have written on this subject, you can go to Overcoming Law Schools Defects (original title in 1996 "Looking for Law in All the Wrong Places: Choosing the Best Law School") and any of the posts on my blog such as Request of Ronald W. Fox to be Appointed Law School Industry Czar.

During my 5 years at Harvard I watched as a majority of each class indicated an interest in serving individuals, the public, non-profits, small businesses and/or being an entrepreneur but 95% ended up in BigLaw and, based on my experience advising lawyers and keeping up with news and surveys, the level of dissatisfaction among lawyers has been higher than most other occupations for decades. The economic downturn will certainly have an effect on the class of 2009 but I wonder how different the figures of those starting their careers in BigLaw were for the class of 2007.

One topic that I don't think gets enough attention is the unmet legal needs of the public. That was my focus early on in the 70's. Every area that I looked at there were not enough lawyers so I began to create and implement lawyer referral projects, divorce mediation, an association of law clinics and other legal delivery systems. My original interest in becoming the public interest advisor at Harvard Law School in 1983 was to increase the access of the underserved to lawyers who entered law school hoping to represent them. In 1981 Lloyd Cutler said that 95% of lawyers time is devoted to the 1% wealthiest of our society, 5% of our time goes to represent the poorest and the rest of society gets virtually none of our time. I recently read statistics indicating that there is still an extraordinarily high percentage of the public unable to secure the services of a lawyer for the majority of the serious legal issues they have (something like only 20% of the legal needs of the poorest 45,000,000 in this country are met).

Have you read the MacCrate Report? How about Larry Velvel's "The Deeply Unsatisfactory Nature of Legal Education Today"? and what about Ron Fox's Lawful Pursuit: Careers in Public Interest Law?

There is a such a great need for a better legal profession!

There may be a wide range of other committees of your organization looking at other aspects of reform of the legal profession so I apologize for being unaware of the breadth of the organization's mission, goals and activities but I have only read the story about BBPL's effort to change BigLaw.

So, I would like to know:

Does BBLP have as its primary focus changing BigLaw? BigLaw is such a small percentage of the legal profession.

Does BBLP you plan to search for, provide support for and encourage law students to seek positions with high quality superlawyers in Small/Law?

Does BBLP support the elimination of on-campus interviewing so that the law schools could begin to provide genuine career planning services?

Does BBLP support demanding that the law schools reduce the cost of attending law school by eliminating the useless third year?

Does BBLP support demanding that the law schools teach the fundamental skills and fundamental values to their students so that when they graduate, they have the confidence, as one of my students once put it, "to BE good, rather than feeling the need to go someplace they think is good".

Does BBLP support demanding that the law schools breathe life into this fundamental value of the legal profession - the commitment of our profession to promote justice and serve the public and work to insure that its students have a realistic opportunity to do so upon graduation?

Would BBLP's goals be met if 95% of the graduates of the "selective" law schools became associates at kindler, gentler BigLaw providing legal services to 1% of society?

I invite you to contact me if you would like to discuss any of this further.

Ron Fox

With all that is happening today, I thought back to an article I wrote shortly after the August, 1997, release of the Boston Bar Association's (BBA) Report of Professional Fulfillment and the subsequent press conference. I wonder to what extent the article describes the current state of the legal profession in Boston and nationally. I would appreciate your comments. 

 

Failing the Bar Examination:

The Disintegration of the Legal Profession

 

       On the surface, the Boston Bar Association's (BBA) Report of Professional Fulfillment describes a few of the most egregious causes of the lawyer dissatisfaction lawyers raised and studied more in depth over the last fifteen years. For example the concerns of law school faculty "about whether the law school curriculum adequately prepares law students for the growing challenges of practice" is overshadowed by the 1992 American Bar Association's MacCrate Report which, after noting the "troubling fact" that "so many young lawyers are seen as lacking the required skills and values at the time the lawyer assumes fall responsibility for handling a client's legal affairs", found that the law schools primarily teach only two of the ten fundamental skills needed by a lawyer. Commentators have criticized law schools for most of this century for being graduate schools of thinking rather than professional training facilities, like medical schools.

 

       But after reading the quote in the Boston Globe from a member of the task force - "The Profession is becoming a business ... It's not a calling any more" - I realized that, in fact, the BBA Report offers much insight into the decline and disintegration of this occupation into a business. The key to understanding the present plight of the profession comes not from the BBA Report's description of the concerns of lawyers but from its "recommendations". There seems to be no meaningful attempt to provide suggestions which would remedy the problems raised by the students and the lawyers. At first blush, this might seem incomprehensible to the casual reader.

 

       For example, the BBA Report refers to the effect on careers of the high cost of law school: "Because of this substantial debt burden, law students feel that their career options are severely limited. While many students entering law school because of their interest in public service, after financing their education, most students pursue employment in the private sector, particularly large law firms, in order to begin to repay their debt. (During the last fifteen years, at many highly selective law schools, while 40% of those entering wanted to serve the legal needs of the public, as many as 95% of the graduates began their careers working for commercial interests in large law firms.) It is insufficient to simply suggest that the BBA "encourage a national organization, such as the American Bar Association, to conduct a comprehensive study of the student debt issue."? Why not pursue the suggestions of the recent graduates who questioned the cost of a legal        education and felt that law school was not worth its high price and design some less expensive alternatives to the three-year legal education including a two-year academic program followed by an apprenticeship?

 

       When faced with evidence that those who graduate from law school are unable to undertake competent representation of a client, it is not sufficient for the BBA to simply recommend that law schools "be encouraged to examine their curriculum"? Why not follow the lead of the ABA and require the law schools to prepare its graduates to participate effectively in the legal profession and to affirm that education in lawyering skills and professional values is central to the mission of law schools. Why not offer the BBA's vast knowledge of its members and put it at the disposal of the law schools to teach faculty and students about the practice of law?

 

       In response to the complaints by associates about the lack of training given to them, it is inadequate to simply recommend that "law firms attempt to ensure that associates have appropriate work experience with assignments which expose them to the spectrum of skills appropriate to their level. Why not require that law firms prepare their associates so they can competently represent a client?

 

       By far the most damaging allegation appears on page 10 of the BBA Report: "Associates believe that firms will tolerate a substantial amount of abuse of associates by a partner who is perceived to be economically valuable to the firm." It is not enough to suggest as a remedy for the abuse of associates that firms train partners to be managers and allow associates to evaluate the partners skills? Why doesn't the BBA demand that the abuse end and establish procedures to stop it?

 

      The reason for the BBA Report's missing sense of outrage and its weak suggestions follows from its stated assumption that professional fulfillment is first and foremost the responsibility of the lawyer, not the institutions; and its request that the reader not return to the past, be realistic and recognize that many of the negative changes such as the commercialization of the practice of law are permanent.

 

      We should not allow the institutions to abdicate their responsibilites and we should not accept any "reality" that justifies actions or practices inconsistent with the fundamental values of the legal profession. In the past there was a respected profession - independent lawyers serving the public - a profession which offered the promises of knowledge of a craft, intellectual stimulation, autonomy, respect, a reasonable income and the opportunity to provide a meaningful service to the public.

 

      The law school that allows its students to graduate with inadequate training and pressures them through debt into positions where the promises of the profession are not met, is no longer entitled to call itself a professional school.

 

      The law firm that fails to train its associates, that allows them to be abused should not be accorded respect within the legal profession.

 

      The bar association that stands by and allows this to continue can call itself a trade group but may have lost its right to refer to itself as a professional organization.

 

      The reduced sense of fulfillment of so many lawyers is a justified reaction to their failure to achieve the goals they had a reason to expect when they entered law school but which have been denied to them.

 

      My nearly forty years in the legal profession has reluctantly convinced me that the solutions to the ills of the profession are not likely to be generated from within the legal community. Changes and reforms will have to come from those most harmed when lawyering is a business and when there is less emphasis on the teaching of competence and the value  of promoting justice, fairness and morality at all levels of our society.

 

      Seventeen years ago, Lloyd Cutler, former president of the ABA, observed that 95% of lawyers time was devoted to the legal issues of the 1% wealthiest members of our society. As law school graduates take positions they do not desire in large firms, the more than 200,000,000 members of our society with legitimate claims in areas such as housing, healthcare, education and employment have no access to the  legal system or these lawyers who hoped to represent them.

 

      Change will come only if those considering entering the profession, law students and lawyers, those who guide and advise them, the public and its representatives in non-profit organizations and in government not only look to the institutions of the legal community for solutions but demand that the institutions take action to recognize, teach, preserve, uphold, police, and enforce compliance with the fundamental values of the legal profession.

 

      If we begin, then perhaps some day we will be able to once again look at this occupation and proudly call it a calling and a profession.