Passing the LSAT Forum

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
03152016

Platinum
Posts: 9180
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: Passing the LSAT

Post by 03152016 » Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:38 pm

obv i'm very open to the argument that there be some metric other than lsat
i posted about lsat as a convo starter
but it would prob make more sense for the burden to be on the school's side
tie their accreditation to some performance metrics
we wouldn't want a minimum lsat threshold to starve a small school feeding into an under-served rural area
and a core diff at a lot of schools with similar medians is the market; see unm and hofstra, both 154 median but worlds apart placement-wise
the larger point is finding a way to reduce the number of students and schools
how we get there is interesting, but the exact mechanism is sort of incidental

User avatar
Cade McNown

Silver
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:54 pm

Re: Passing the LSAT

Post by Cade McNown » Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:01 am

Brut wrote:
Cade McNown wrote:Moreover, if you increase barriers to entry to law, where charity can only be given by licensed attorneys, you necessarily make it more difficult for legal aid organizations to find more recruits.
your quote, as it appears above (without any need to edit, imagine that!) says that increasing barriers to entry will make it more difficult for legal aid organizations to find more recruits
so i posted a knowledgeable source's account of how pd offices are 'inundated' with grads from top schools
these jobs are in higher demand bc of pslf, pd hiring has become more competitive
ergo if barriers to entry increased and some TTTTs have to close up shop, the effect on pd hiring would be negligible
The underlined conclusion does not follow. The key phrase was "more difficult," i.e., more difficult than hiring otherwise would be but for barriers to entry. Even if your source's observation is accurate, and people generally realize that PD-positions are relatively popular now compared to the past, the point is that PD and legal aid offices would be even more 'inundated' but for the barrier to entry, because there would be even more similarly-situated JDs clamoring for those currently in-demand jobs. The statements are not inconsistent.
Brut wrote:r u like one of those libertarian retards who just completely rejects reality in favor of econ textbooks
like b honest how many ayn rand novels do u have on ur bookshelf
I'm a California liberal. I'm pro-regulation as long as regulation is welfare-enhancing. Like I've suggested, I think you could justify your LSAT-minimum on public welfare grounds if you could persuade us that an LSAT-minimum would improve the quality of legal services available to the public.

Instead, you insist upon viewing the LSAT minimum from only the perspective of improving the positions of underemployed law students and recent graduates. Moreover, your allegation that the "real world" departs from the economic world is asinine, because economics studies nothing more than the observed real-world behavior of humans in markets. For these reasons (and more), your opinion can't be taken seriously from a principled public policy perspective.

03152016

Platinum
Posts: 9180
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: Passing the LSAT

Post by 03152016 » Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:27 am

Cade McNown wrote:The underlined conclusion does not follow. The key phrase was "more difficult," i.e., more difficult than hiring otherwise would be but for barriers to entry. Even if your source's observation is accurate, and people generally realize that PD-positions are relatively popular now compared to the past, the point is that PD and legal aid offices would be even more 'inundated' but for the barrier to entry, because there would be even more similarly-situated JDs clamoring for those currently in-demand jobs. The statements are not inconsistent.
Brut wrote:dear lord has this become pedantic
Cade McNown wrote:Like I've suggested, I think you could justify your LSAT-minimum on public welfare grounds if you could persuade us that an LSAT-minimum would improve the quality of legal services available to the public.

Instead, you insist upon viewing the LSAT minimum from only the perspective of improving the positions of underemployed law students and recent graduates.
Brut wrote:-lessen the glut of JDs in the job market, and possibly lead to higher caliber graduates on the whole
Brut wrote:-possibly cull some of the least competent would-be applicants, leading to better outcomes for clients?
why are you so bad at this

User avatar
Cade McNown

Silver
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:54 pm

Re: Passing the LSAT

Post by Cade McNown » Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:36 am

:roll: Yes, because listing possible rationales in the OP and actually making & defending arguments are the same thing. Your body of posts show where your heart lies.

IBTLatest "pedantic" retort

03152016

Platinum
Posts: 9180
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: Passing the LSAT

Post by 03152016 » Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:41 am

Cade McNown wrote::roll: Yes, because listing possible rationales in the OP and actually making & defending arguments are the same thing. Your body of posts show where your heart lies.

IBTLatest "pedantic" retort
you steered the argument that way you blithering moron
read the first page

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29293
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Passing the LSAT

Post by A. Nony Mouse » Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:43 am

Cade McNown wrote:Moreover, your allegation that the "real world" departs from the economic world is asinine, because economics studies nothing more than the observed real-world behavior of humans in markets. For these reasons (and more), your opinion can't be taken seriously from a principled public policy perspective.
No, but really, are you claiming that the economic theory you've cited accurately describes/predicts all behavior in the real world? Really? Economists are getting everything right?

User avatar
Cade McNown

Silver
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:54 pm

Re: Passing the LSAT

Post by Cade McNown » Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:48 am

Brut wrote:
Cade McNown wrote::roll: Yes, because listing possible rationales in the OP and actually making & defending arguments are the same thing. Your body of posts show where your heart lies.

IBTLatest "pedantic" retort
you steered the argument that way you blithering moron
read the first page
Actually, I stated and defended one possible reason not to impose an LSAT-minimum, leaving the door wide open for other opinions, specifically trying to steer the convo toward discussion of the Quality effects of a barrier to entry. Neither you nor anyone else took that invitation.

User avatar
gitguy

Bronze
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:01 pm

Re: Passing the LSAT

Post by gitguy » Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:49 am

Cade McNown wrote:Interesting topic, though it seems some people here (1) misunderstand the relative roles of LSAC, the ABA, law schools, and state governments, and/or (2) underestimate the harm that a strict LSAT-based barrier to entry might inflict.

LSAC is a nonprofit whose membership is comprised of law schools themselves. It lacks the authority (and incentive) to command law schools to reject applicants without a requisite LSAT score. Of course, nothing compels law school admissions offices to require an LSAT score at all. At best, LSAC could refuse to report low LSAT scores. While such a tactic might create an impediment to TTTTs, probably TTTTs will simply change their behavior by moving to a more holistic admissions process.

ABA is a voluntary professional organization of attorneys. It also lacks the authority to command law schools to reject applicants without a requisite LSAT score. ABA has some significant indirect power, because it could refuse to accredit schools who admit students with below-requisite LSAT scores. The reason this sanction is powerful, however, is not because the ABA is all-powerful, but because the federal government conditions student loans on accreditation status, and most state governments have implemented licensing schemes that require practicing attorneys to have graduated from an accredited school. However, not even tougher LSAT-based accreditation standards will deter the worst law school consumers--i.e., those who take out private loans to attend unaccredited schools.

OP's idea is that the LSAT should act as a barrier to entry to law school, and thereby the legal profession. As a general matter, barriers to entry are justified by both unselfish and selfish rationales. Unselfish reasons for increased barriers to entry include protecting the fiduciary nature of the legal profession, or paternalistic consumer protection for those considering law school. Selfish reasons for increased barriers to entry relate to suppression of competition, such as the ability of a reduced supply of attorneys to exact higher legal fees, or the desire to make legal hiring less competitive for law students. OP's idea seems motivated by a combination of such reasons.

I'm not persuaded by the selfish reasons for an LSAT barrier to entry. W.R.T. the unselfish reasons, to me a minimum LSAT requirement (whether voluntarily adopted by law schools, coerced by the ABA, or mandated by state licensing regimes) would be imperfect, duplicitous, and improvident. It's imperfect because the LSAT, like any aptitude test, cannot be expected to reliably screen out the good future lawyers from the bad. It's duplicitous because the legal profession already has significant barriers to entry--i.e. law school itself, and the Bar Exam. Finally, it seems improvident because (a) consumer protection is better achieved through information disclosure measures, and (b) the fiduciary nature of the profession (perversely) seems likely to be negatively impacted, because a reduced supply of lawyers in the long-run will produce increased legal fees to clients while achieving only speculative gains in attorney quality.

/my 2c.

In furtherance of this argument, I think it's important to note that part of the rationale behind the threshold for MCAT scores, and med school selectivity as it is generally, is to prevent deflation in doctor salaries. That's not a fact the AMA hides, and that was the same rational for the AMA (i.e., doctors) coming out publicly AGAINST the public option being considered before the ACA became the law of the land.

In reality, the public is actually in need of more attorneys, not fewer. Of course, those services are needed by individuals and groups that are without the means to pay attorney fees. But that's an entirely separate discussion. The core of the law school debacle involves law schools being used as profit centers for their universities, loose educational lending, and of course, the dearth of legal jobs.

Finally, I would regard any claim that the LSAT is equal to the MCAT in terms of assessing an applicant's capacity to enter the respective profession. I think the knowledge, or more appropriately, the skill set required to be an effective attorney is more difficult to assess in an applicant by means of rigorous standardized testing than that for a doctor which rests on the natural sciences, which can be more objectively assessed.

User avatar
Cade McNown

Silver
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:54 pm

Re: Passing the LSAT

Post by Cade McNown » Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:58 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
Cade McNown wrote:Moreover, your allegation that the "real world" departs from the economic world is asinine, because economics studies nothing more than the observed real-world behavior of humans in markets. For these reasons (and more), your opinion can't be taken seriously from a principled public policy perspective.
No, but really, are you claiming that the economic theory you've cited accurately describes/predicts all behavior in the real world? Really? Economists are getting everything right?
Did I ever state that? I don't think so, because economists disagree with each other on certain matters, so necessarily some economists get some things wrong. Fortunately for me, the allegedly robust "economic theory" I cited was restrained to a high school-level economic fact that not a single economist in the world could disagree with:

Image

Now, if you can disprove that, you'll win a Nobel fucking Prize.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29293
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Passing the LSAT

Post by A. Nony Mouse » Tue Jun 24, 2014 2:03 am

Define "supply" and "demand" in this case though. There are already more lawyers than there are jobs. Creating more lawyers isn't going to magically cause them to do the kind of low-cost legal work you want them to provide.

03152016

Platinum
Posts: 9180
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: Passing the LSAT

Post by 03152016 » Tue Jun 24, 2014 2:12 am

Cade McNown wrote:Instead, you insist upon viewing the LSAT minimum from only the perspective of improving the positions of underemployed law students and recent graduates.
Cade McNown wrote:Yes, because listing possible rationales in the OP and actually making & defending arguments are the same thing.
Image

03152016

Platinum
Posts: 9180
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: Passing the LSAT

Post by 03152016 » Tue Jun 24, 2014 2:12 am

god you're dumb

User avatar
Cade McNown

Silver
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:54 pm

Re: Passing the LSAT

Post by Cade McNown » Tue Jun 24, 2014 2:36 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Define "supply" and "demand" in this case though.

Supply = The aggregate of people willing and licensed to provide legal services.
Demand = The aggregate public willingness and ability to pay for legal services.
A. Nony Mouse wrote:There are already more lawyers than there are jobs.
Are there? Then why do some studies (if they're to be believed) find that 85% of the civil legal needs of low-income people are not being met? If there were really insufficient jobs, i.e. insufficient legal work to be done, then why does LegalZoom exist? Certainly there are transaction costs and informational barriers to a young out-of-work lawyer who might fill those voids, but there are jobs to be created.
A. Nony Mouse wrote:Creating more lawyers isn't going to magically cause them to do the kind of low-cost legal work you want them to provide.
They'll do low-cost work if the alternative is zero income, especially if loan obligations are coming due. Why do you think people do Doc Review jobs?

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


03152016

Platinum
Posts: 9180
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: Passing the LSAT

Post by 03152016 » Tue Jun 24, 2014 2:43 am

Cade McNown wrote:If there were really insufficient jobs, i.e. insufficient legal work to be done, then why does LegalZoom exist? Certainly there are transaction costs and informational barriers to a young out-of-work lawyer who might fill those voids, but there are jobs to be created.
LOL

User avatar
Cade McNown

Silver
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:54 pm

Re: Passing the LSAT

Post by Cade McNown » Tue Jun 24, 2014 2:49 am

Brut wrote:
Cade McNown wrote:If there were really insufficient jobs, i.e. insufficient legal work to be done, then why does LegalZoom exist? Certainly there are transaction costs and informational barriers to a young out-of-work lawyer who might fill those voids, but there are jobs to be created.
LOL
Why lol? And would you care to comment on the unmet-demand studies referenced in the link included alongside the LegalZoom question?

03152016

Platinum
Posts: 9180
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: Passing the LSAT

Post by 03152016 » Tue Jun 24, 2014 3:01 am

Cade McNown wrote:
Brut wrote:
Cade McNown wrote:If there were really insufficient jobs, i.e. insufficient legal work to be done, then why does LegalZoom exist? Certainly there are transaction costs and informational barriers to a young out-of-work lawyer who might fill those voids, but there are jobs to be created.
LOL
Why lol? And would you care to comment on the unmet-demand studies referenced in the link included alongside the LegalZoom question?
Image
i wonder why legalzoom exists
i wonder why...

User avatar
Cade McNown

Silver
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:54 pm

Re: Passing the LSAT

Post by Cade McNown » Tue Jun 24, 2014 3:09 am

Well, by the looks of that ad LegalZoom exists to provide cheap legal services. I wonder if underemployed lawyers could take advantage of that market??

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


03152016

Platinum
Posts: 9180
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: Passing the LSAT

Post by 03152016 » Tue Jun 24, 2014 3:15 am

Cade McNown wrote:Well, by the looks of that ad LegalZoom exists to provide cheap legal services. I wonder if underemployed lawyers could take advantage of that market??
ah yes its so easy y don't they just hang a shingle brilliant! (LinkRemoved)

User avatar
ScottRiqui

Gold
Posts: 3633
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:09 pm

Re: Passing the LSAT

Post by ScottRiqui » Tue Jun 24, 2014 3:23 am

Cade McNown wrote:
Brut wrote:
Cade McNown wrote:If there were really insufficient jobs, i.e. insufficient legal work to be done, then why does LegalZoom exist? Certainly there are transaction costs and informational barriers to a young out-of-work lawyer who might fill those voids, but there are jobs to be created.
LOL
Why lol? And would you care to comment on the unmet-demand studies referenced in the link included alongside the LegalZoom question?
IF 85-92% of the respondents in the study went without legal representation for reasons *other* than money, then what *were* the reasons? The paper didn't really address that, but I find it hard to believe that they couldn't find a lawyer if they wanted one. If money's not the issue, is it really a lack of available lawyers, or are people choosing not to get legal assistance for other reasons?

User avatar
Cade McNown

Silver
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:54 pm

Re: Passing the LSAT

Post by Cade McNown » Tue Jun 24, 2014 3:39 am

ScottRiqui wrote:IF 85-92% of the respondents in the study went without legal representation for reasons *other* than money, then what *were* the reasons? The paper didn't really address that, but I find it hard to believe that they couldn't find a lawyer if they wanted one. If money's not the issue, is it really a lack of available lawyers, or are people choosing not to get legal assistance for other reasons?
I agree it's unclear. I think some of the biggest reasons identified were psychological or diagnostic in nature. The article mentions that many survey respondents didn't take legal services because they believed 'nothing could be done,' or they failed to recognize a legal issue. These seem like the sort of failures a general practitioner could help solve via initial consultations, but that's a pure guess. Also, if costs rise, then I think we could reasonably expect more people to attribute their unmet demand to cost concerns.

03152016

Platinum
Posts: 9180
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: Passing the LSAT

Post by 03152016 » Tue Jun 24, 2014 3:40 am

also i don't see how a solo could keep the lights on trying to price match legal zoom
it'd be like a mom and pop corner store trying to price match wal-mart

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


User avatar
ScottRiqui

Gold
Posts: 3633
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:09 pm

Re: Passing the LSAT

Post by ScottRiqui » Tue Jun 24, 2014 3:47 am

Cade McNown wrote:
ScottRiqui wrote:IF 85-92% of the respondents in the study went without legal representation for reasons *other* than money, then what *were* the reasons? The paper didn't really address that, but I find it hard to believe that they couldn't find a lawyer if they wanted one. If money's not the issue, is it really a lack of available lawyers, or are people choosing not to get legal assistance for other reasons?
I agree it's unclear. I think some of the biggest reasons identified were psychological or diagnostic in nature. The article mentions that many survey respondents didn't take legal services because they believed 'nothing could be done,' or they failed to recognize a legal issue. These seem like the sort of failures a general practitioner could help solve via initial consultations, but that's a pure guess. Also, if costs rise, then I think we could reasonably expect more people to attribute their unmet demand to cost concerns.
Regarding the bolded, is there any evidence that there weren't legal practitioners available to them, or that having more lawyers would help the situation?

There's a parallel phenomenon with banking. Lots of lower-income people don't use banks, not because they can't afford the $50 minimum deposit to open a checking account, or because there aren't banks willing to take their business. They just don't use banks. Opening up more banks won't change that, either.

There are "wants" (simple desires) and "demand" (a desire accompanied by a willingness and ability to pay for it). The linked paper seems to be talking about something else entirely - cases where people "need" legal services, but evidently don't give a shit (i.e. a "need" without an established "want"). Since the paper isn't talking about demand in the economic sense, talking about the "supply" of lawyers in that context doesn't make much sense.
Last edited by ScottRiqui on Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Cade McNown

Silver
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:54 pm

Re: Passing the LSAT

Post by Cade McNown » Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:04 am

ScottRiqui wrote:
Cade McNown wrote:
ScottRiqui wrote:IF 85-92% of the respondents in the study went without legal representation for reasons *other* than money, then what *were* the reasons? The paper didn't really address that, but I find it hard to believe that they couldn't find a lawyer if they wanted one. If money's not the issue, is it really a lack of available lawyers, or are people choosing not to get legal assistance for other reasons?
I agree it's unclear. I think some of the biggest reasons identified were psychological or diagnostic in nature. The article mentions that many survey respondents didn't take legal services because they believed 'nothing could be done,' or they failed to recognize a legal issue. These seem like the sort of failures a general practitioner could help solve via initial consultations, but that's a pure guess. Also, if costs rise, then I think we could reasonably expect more people to attribute their unmet demand to cost concerns.
Regarding the bolded, is there any evidence that there weren't legal practitioners available to them, or that having more lawyers would help the situation?

There's a parallel phenomenon with banking. Lots of lower-income people don't use banks, not because they can't afford the $50 minimum deposit to open a checking account, or because there aren't banks willing to take their business. They just don't use banks. Opening up more banks won't change that, either.

There are "wants" (simple desires) and "demand" (a desire accompanied by a willingness and ability to pay for it). The linked paper seems to be talking about something else entirely - cases where people "need" legal services, but evidently don't give a shit. Since the paper isn't talking about demand in the economic sense, talking about the "supply" of lawyers in that context doesn't make much sense.
That seems like a reasonable take. I haven't read the underlying studies. I don't think the article should have to speak in economic terms to be a relevant indicator of true economic need though. Part of how clients discover an economic need is via talking with an attorney. If there are more attorneys, it's at least reasonable to think they're more likely actually to consult with one, and for a cheaper fee than if fewer attorneys are competing, right?

User avatar
ScottRiqui

Gold
Posts: 3633
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:09 pm

Re: Passing the LSAT

Post by ScottRiqui » Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:20 am

Cade McNown wrote:
ScottRiqui wrote:
Cade McNown wrote:
ScottRiqui wrote:IF 85-92% of the respondents in the study went without legal representation for reasons *other* than money, then what *were* the reasons? The paper didn't really address that, but I find it hard to believe that they couldn't find a lawyer if they wanted one. If money's not the issue, is it really a lack of available lawyers, or are people choosing not to get legal assistance for other reasons?
I agree it's unclear. I think some of the biggest reasons identified were psychological or diagnostic in nature. The article mentions that many survey respondents didn't take legal services because they believed 'nothing could be done,' or they failed to recognize a legal issue. These seem like the sort of failures a general practitioner could help solve via initial consultations, but that's a pure guess. Also, if costs rise, then I think we could reasonably expect more people to attribute their unmet demand to cost concerns.
Regarding the bolded, is there any evidence that there weren't legal practitioners available to them, or that having more lawyers would help the situation?

There's a parallel phenomenon with banking. Lots of lower-income people don't use banks, not because they can't afford the $50 minimum deposit to open a checking account, or because there aren't banks willing to take their business. They just don't use banks. Opening up more banks won't change that, either.

There are "wants" (simple desires) and "demand" (a desire accompanied by a willingness and ability to pay for it). The linked paper seems to be talking about something else entirely - cases where people "need" legal services, but evidently don't give a shit. Since the paper isn't talking about demand in the economic sense, talking about the "supply" of lawyers in that context doesn't make much sense.
That seems like a reasonable take. I haven't read the underlying studies. I don't think the article should have to speak in economic terms to be a relevant indicator of true economic need though. Part of how clients discover an economic need is via talking with an attorney. If there are more attorneys, it's at least reasonable to think they're more likely actually to consult with one, and for a cheaper fee than if fewer attorneys are competing, right?
No, the paper doesn't need to speak in economic terms, but it's also incorrect to use the paper as evidence that there needs to be a larger supply of lawyers, using "supply" in the economic sense. And why do you think that more lawyers would make it more likely that they would consult with one? If they're somehow institutionalized to not seek out lawyers, it's not going to matter if there are six lawyers in the phone book, or six hundred. And the size of the fees aren't relevant if ~90% of the respondents *aren't* saying that money is what kept them from using a lawyer.

Basically, I think the paper's entire premise that "85% of the civil legal needs of low income persons are currently not being met" is misleading, at best. If I have adequate financial means, but I never go to the dentist for a cleaning, or go to the doctor for a checkup, is really true that my medical needs "aren't being met"? Saying that these peoples' legal needs aren't being "met" is pinning the problem on the supply side of the situation, but the paper never establishes that to be true. But the paper goes right into stuff like subsidized legal services, pro bono work, etc., while ignoring the whole "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink" aspect.

The paper's use of the term "need" is nebulous, bordering on useless. It's not a "demand", and it's not even a "desire" - as best I can tell, they're using "need" to describe services that the people should desire and demand, but don't. And you're not going to fix that situation by fiddling with the supply side of the profession.

User avatar
mi-chan17

Bronze
Posts: 428
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:55 am

Re: Passing the LSAT

Post by mi-chan17 » Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:27 am

This post would be a million pages long if I responded to everything on this thread that I think needs comment, so I'll limit myself to two points. [Note: edited to fix quoting formatting errors.]
Cade McNown wrote: Supply = The aggregate of people willing and licensed to provide legal services.
Demand = The aggregate public willingness and ability to pay for legal services.

[]They'll do low-cost work if the alternative is zero income, especially if loan obligations are coming due. Why do you think people do Doc Review jobs?
I think this is part of where the fundamental disconnect is happening. Supply of lawyers to do indigent civil litigation will remain static even if the number of graduates changes. Why? The supply you're imagining that currently exists, this magical supply of lawyers who are willing to do civil indigent work, already doesn't exist. Law school costs a quarter of a million dollars, and no one with that debt load can afford to do civil indigent work. The money just isn't there. Doc review sucks, but there's no start up costs other than the sunk cost of your law degree. Not so if you're attempting to make a go of it solo. There's overhead, your insanely high-priced malpractice insurance (since you have absolutely no experience), advertising (which you need, since you have no experience and no one has ever heard of you), and debt collectors, because many of your clients won't pay on time, or at all.

That doesn't mean I don't think that those needs should be addressed - they should be - but the glut of lawyers we currently have won't fix those problems.
Cade McNown wrote: Instead, you insist upon viewing the LSAT minimum from only the perspective of improving the positions of underemployed law students and recent graduates. Moreover, your allegation that the "real world" departs from the economic world is asinine, because economics studies nothing more than the observed real-world behavior of humans in markets. For these reasons (and more), your opinion can't be taken seriously from a principled public policy perspective.
Okay, let's look at it from the public's perspective, then. Right now, they're paying for every defaulted loan of every law grad that is unemployed or underemployed. Literally millions of dollars have been loaned by their government, using their tax money, to people that will be completely unable to pay that money back. Improving the situation of people the government loaned money to doesn't only benefit the indebted, it benefits the people who made the loan.

Additionally, despite the public's dubious investment in people who attend schools with significant un- or under-employment, they still aren't receiving the indigent services that you seem to want to believe are provided by the excess of JD-holders we've created.

It doesn't benefit the public to keep the current system, either. So, from a principled public policy perspective, the current system is still terrible.

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!


Post Reply

Return to “Choosing a Law School”