Sometimes everything you need to know about a piece of purported scholarly legal research appears in its opening lines. Take, for example, the first two sentences of “ “Keep Calm and Carry On” in the current issue of The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics:
“Supposedly, there is a crisis in legal education. It appears to be touted mostly by those who are in the business of realizing monetary (or, at least, reputational) gain from providing cost-efficient coverage about matters of (rather) little importance.”
At this point, Professor René Reich-Graefe’s 15-page article offers the second of its 80 footnotes: “For example, in 2011, The New York Times Company reported annual revenues of $2,323,401,000. Of those, approximately 52.57 percent (or $1,221,497,000) were raised in advertising revenue. …”
So it turns out that The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and every other media outlet reporting on the troubled world of American legal education have manufactured a crisis to sell advertising space. Never mind that there are too many law school graduates for too few J.D.–required jobs, that law school tuition has skyrocketed over the past decade, and that student debt is financially crippling those who graduate. Everyone just needs to calm down.
Professor Reich-Graefe offers what he calls “a brief exercise in some eclectic apologetics of the present state of legal education for those of us who refuse to become card-carrying members of the contemporary ‘Hysterias-R-Us’ legal lemming movement.”
Starting with a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report that “lawyer employment jobs in 2010 were at 728,200,” he observes that the country has an additional 500,000 licensed attorneys and concludes: “One may safely assume that, at present, a good number (though certainly not all) of those licensed lawyers are gainfully employed, too—mainly within the legal profession.”
Then Reich-Graefe posits a litany of trends that he says will favor the legal profession: “Over half of currently practicing lawyers in this country will retire over the next 15 to 20 years”; “U.S. population will increase by over 100 million people, i.e., by one third, until 2060, thus, increasing total demand for legal services”; “the two largest intergenerational wealth transfers in the history of mankind … will occur in the United States over the course of the next 30 to 40 years, thus, increasing total demand for legal services even further”; and “everything in the law, by definition, will continue to change … there will be more work for more lawyers.”
His analysis culminates in a breathless conclusion: “Recent law school graduates and current and future law students are standing at the threshold of the most robust legal market that ever existed in this country—a legal market which will grow, exist for, and coincide with their entire professional career [sic].”
Others have already dissected Reich-Graefe’s statistical arguments in great detail. Suffice it to say that when law professors wander into the world of numbers, someone should subject their work to peer review before publishing it.
But Professor Bill Henderson makes an equally important point: Even if Reich-Graefe’s analysis and assumptions are valid, his advice—“Keep Calm and Carry On”—is dangerous.
I would add this nuance: Reich-Graefe’s advice is more dangerous for some law schools than for others. The distinction matters because law schools don’t constitute a single market. That’s not a value judgment; it’s just true. At Professor Reich-Graefe’s school, Western New England University School of Law, only 37 percent of the graduating class of 2013 obtained full-time, long-term jobs requiring a J.D. Compare that to the graduate employment rates (and salaries) for those coming out of top law schools and then try to convince yourself that all schools serve the same market for new lawyers.
The dual market should have profound implications for any particular school’s mission, but so far it hasn’t. Tuition at some schools with dismal employment outcomes isn’t significantly lower than it is at some top schools where graduation practically assures J.D.–required employment at a six-figure salary.
Likewise, virtually all schools have ridden the wave of dramatic tuition increases. In 2005, full-time tuition and fees at Western New England was $27,000. This year, it’s $40,000.
Shame on Us
Reich-Graefe makes many of us accomplices to his claimed conspiracy against facts and reason. Shame on me for writing “The Lawyer Bubble.” Shame on Richard Susskind for writing “Tomorrow’s Lawyers.” Shame on Bill Henderson for his favorable review of our books in the April 2014 issue of the Michigan Law Review. Shame on Brian Tamanaha, Paul Campos, Matt Leichter and every other voice of concern for the future of the profession and those entering it.
Deeply vested interests would prefer to embrace a different message that has a noble heritage: “Keep Calm and Carry On”—as the British government urged its citizenry during World War II. But in this context, what does “carry on” mean?
“Carry on” How, Exactly?
Recently on the Legal Whiteboard, Professor Jerry Organ at St. Thomas University School of Law answered that question: filling classrooms by abandoning law school admission standards. Ten years ago, the overall admission rate for applicants was 50 percent; today it’s almost 80 percent. That trend line accompanies a pernicious business model.
It’s still tough to get into a top law school; that segment of the market isn’t sacrificing student quality to fill seats. But most members of the other law school market are. They could proceed differently. They could view the current crisis as an opportunity for dramatic innovation. They could rethink their missions. They could offer prospective students new ways to assess realistically their potential roles as attorneys while providing a practical, financially viable path for graduates to get there.
Alternatively, they can keep calm and carry on. Then they can hope that on the current field of battle they’re not carried off—on their shields.
Steven J. Harper is an adjunct professor at Northwestern University and author of “The Lawyer Bubble: A Profession in Crisis” (Basic Books, April 2013), and other books. He retired as a partner at Kirkland & Ellis in 2008, after 30 years in private practice. His blog about the legal profession, The Belly of the Beast, can be found at http://thebellyofthebeast.wordpress.com. A version of the column above was first published on The Belly of the Beast.