An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus Forum

[robotclubmember]

Mick dude. Stop using the plumber thing as a red herring to distract from the real point at issue. This isn't lawyer v. plumber, this is an analysis of the surplus of lawyers, in which plumber came up as an example of skilled trade which offers, I believe, a similar ROI to prospects in the legal field and is lower risk (especially for sub-T1 applicants). Coulda been a welder, or nurse, idk, plumber was just the example that stuck.

[areyouinsane]

RobotClub, a big problem is that prospective law students share is the "it won't happen to me" mentality. This is common to many reckless endeavors (like cigarette smoking, drinking & driving, etc). It'll always be "some other pathetic loser" who ends up with lung cancer, or a vehicular homicide charge, or a $25 an hour doc review gig.


For example, back in 2007 the daughter of a good friend of my dad's was accepted into the same TTT toilet law school I graduated from. When my dad told her I was an alum, she went all ga-ga and asked if I'd speak to them both via a conference call. I said "sure."

I gave her and her mom the hard medicine about what a worthless TTT it was, how she was making the biggest mistake of her life, etc. All she kept saying was "wow, I'm gonna have to work my ass off" and "well, I love to argue and am a good writer" and "I had a 4.0 in undergrad."

Fast forward 4 years and, lo and behold, she's working the God-awful Barasso doc review gig in Westfield, NJ for $25 an hour. Thanks for playing! Better yet, her mom just took out a home equity loan to help her pay off the debt. The chick is hot and apparently now is looking into becoming a realtor. Bet she wished she listened to me back in the day.

If you're going into any non T-14 school and expecting anything north of $25 an hour upon graduation, you're likely to be very disappointed. Of course, don't take my word for it. Find out the hard way,kids.

[robotclubmember]

I think the structural change has been overstated, which comes from the exaggerations that everyone likes to make in a time of crisis. Everyone swears they'll be more mindful with money when they lose a lot, then get careless once they're comfortable. Things like e-discovery and more temp hiring will likely put a squeeze on the legal hiring market, but it's hard to tell how much that'll actually affect things.

BTW, there are still court reporters even though recording technology has made leaps and bounds. And they still make bank (less so in this economy obviously).

There will still be lawyers. They will always be needed. But not to the level they are being produced.

I think the structural changes are being ignored actually. How often do you see anyone talking about them on these boards? There's more denial than anything else. There are hard stats on temp hiring and they aren't pretty. Unless you can speak to how they are incorrect, they are what they are. I didn't overstate anything, I just reiterated percentages.

It took auto unions a LONG time to admit to the structural changes taking place around them. And we will always need auto workers. But it's very different times for them now. I think over time, you will see more tech innovations, not less. You'd be dumb to think otherwise. What affect would that have on the need for human labor? Leveraging temps is easy too, because unlike court reporters, there is a substantial shift in the supply demand EQ for lawyers occurring right now which will drive prices down. The laws of supply and demand don't just stop existing because you don't want to believe in them.

[Hannibal]

There will still be lawyers. They will always be needed. But not to the level they are being produced.

I think the structural changes are being ignored actually. How often do you see anyone talking about them on these boards? There's more denial than anything else. There are hard stats on temp hiring and they aren't pretty. Unless you can speak to how they are incorrect, they are what they are. I didn't overstate anything, I just reiterated percentages.

It took auto unions a LONG time to admit to the structural changes taking place around them. And we will always need auto workers. But it's very different times for them now. I think over time, you will see more tech innovations, not less. You'd be dumb to think otherwise. What affect would that have on the need for human labor? Leveraging temps is easy too, because unlike court reporters, there is a substantial shift in the supply demand EQ for lawyers occurring right now which will drive prices down. The laws of supply and demand don't just stop existing because you don't want to believe in them.

Yeah, at the level they're being produced. Production will go down as the recovery continues, as new jobs go up. Production actually goes up when jobs go down, and vice versa.

You probably shouldn't assume any recent trends in stats as permanent until the job market gets back to a near-normal level.

And court reporters are actually having a very bad recession (moreso than lawyers). Are they scared that they'd be replaced by tape recorders and voice recognition software? Yes, but the recent increase in contracting indicates otherwise. They were similarly scared in the early 90s Savings and Loan crisis, the tech bubble's burst and the brief recession after 9/11.

[fatduck]

inb4 "the new normal"

[robotclubmember]

Yeah, at the level they're being produced. Production will go down as the recovery continues, as new jobs go up. Production actually goes up when jobs go down, and vice versa.

I don't think I agree with this generalization, bet that's because jobs appear to be still going down... lol, but I like it that your avatar is a Machoke.

[AreJay711]

Yeah, at the level they're being produced. Production will go down as the recovery continues, as new jobs go up. Production actually goes up when jobs go down, and vice versa.

I don't think I agree with this generalization, bet that's because jobs appear to be still going down... lol, but I like it that your avatar is a Machoke.

Jobs aren't really going down. unemployment is acting weird bc you have people re-entering the work force in addition to the natural growth of the labor pool.

[robotclubmember]

growth is stagnant, liked your old av better

[AreJay711]

growth is stagnant, liked your old av better

Growth is at 2.9% a year which is just slow growth. It is just a temporary switch until I forget about Curry.

[robotclubmember]

There will still be lawyers. They will always be needed. But not to the level they are being produced.

I think the structural changes are being ignored actually. How often do you see anyone talking about them on these boards? There's more denial than anything else. There are hard stats on temp hiring and they aren't pretty. Unless you can speak to how they are incorrect, they are what they are. I didn't overstate anything, I just reiterated percentages.

It took auto unions a LONG time to admit to the structural changes taking place around them. And we will always need auto workers. But it's very different times for them now. I think over time, you will see more tech innovations, not less. You'd be dumb to think otherwise. What affect would that have on the need for human labor? Leveraging temps is easy too, because unlike court reporters, there is a substantial shift in the supply demand EQ for lawyers occurring right now which will drive prices down. The laws of supply and demand don't just stop existing because you don't want to believe in them.

Yeah, at the level they're being produced. Production will go down as the recovery continues, as new jobs go up. Production actually goes up when jobs go down, and vice versa.

You probably shouldn't assume any recent trends in stats as permanent until the job market gets back to a near-normal level.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/arti ... igm_shift/

even if you don't assume they're permanent, the ABA does

[nygiants56]

Should law schools have a responsibilities to its current and past students and recognize the paradigm shift in the job market and change their acceptance criteria. I have yet to apply to a law school but reading all the doom and gloom posted on TLS it is definitely terrifying to hear.

[thesealocust]

Should law schools have a responsibilities to its current and past students and recognize the paradigm shift in the job market and change their acceptance criteria. I have yet to apply to a law school but reading all the doom and gloom posted on TLS it is definitely terrifying to hear.

They SHOULD, but like a lot of things, the incentives are misalligned. Law schools are cheap to run and tuition / loan money is guaranteed at whatever level from the population they accept. That means they have an enormous profit margin (in truth, many law schools pay lump sums directly to their affiliated college or university for the right to use the name, and few public law schools receive state support). As such, the people making the decisions are going to see dollar signs before they see social responsibility. This kind of problem is hardly uncommon in our age- see, e.g., wall street, biotech research, Congressional decision making, presidential candidate's choices, war, etc.

[Hannibal]

That means they have an enormous profit margin (in truth, many law schools pay lump sums directly to their affiliated college or university for the right to use the name, and few public law schools receive state support). As such, the people making the decisions are going to see dollar signs before they see social responsibility.

This is largely not true for the kinds of schools most people here are going to. Yale spend $150,000 per student, Harvard $100k. The lowest school to spend more per student than tuition is Minnesota, and that's only if you don't include the scholarship money they give out and in-state kids (they spend 40k/student).

[Blessedassurance]

Should law schools have a responsibilities to its current and past students and recognize the paradigm shift in the job market and change their acceptance criteria. I have yet to apply to a law school but reading all the doom and gloom posted on TLS it is definitely terrifying to hear.

They SHOULD, but like a lot of things, the incentives are misalligned. Law schools are cheap to run and tuition / loan money is guaranteed at whatever level from the population they accept. That means they have an enormous profit margin (in truth, many law schools pay lump sums directly to their affiliated college or university for the right to use the name, and few public law schools receive state support). As such, the people making the decisions are going to see dollar signs before they see social responsibility. This kind of problem is hardly uncommon in our age- see, e.g., wall street, biotech research, Congressional decision making, presidential candidate's choices, war, etc.

Shouldn't the responsibility then fall to the ABA then? I'm sure this has been argued before but isn't this an incentive for the ABA to limit accreditation and disaccredit some? Influencing the market by controlling supply is not a novel concept (see AMA, OPEC etc). What's the ABA's angle on this? Any disincentives?

[thesealocust]

Hannibal: Don't take $ spent per student as gospel, like any other accounting figure its subject to massive, massive manipulation and is self reported. Whatever Yaal is spending its money on, it's not a cost of educating its students. I would actually not be surprised if the tithe schools pay to their affiliated main university is calculated into spending per student.

Blessedassurance: The last time the ABA tried, they got nuked from orbit by an antitrust investigation/suit (I'm foggy on the details). Whoops.

[scammedhard]

Hannibal: Don't take $ spent per student as gospel, like any other accounting figure its subject to massive, massive manipulation and is self reported. Whatever Yaal is spending its money on, it's not a cost of educating its students. I would actually not be surprised if the tithe schools pay to their affiliated main university is calculated into spending per student.

Blessedassurance: The last time the ABA tried, they got nuked from orbit by an antitrust investigation/suit (I'm foggy on the details). Whoops.

This totally not true. The ABA always says that as an excuse to not do anything about law schools. The actual dispute was mostly about faculty salaries and it never even mentioned that the ABA cannot regulate the number of law schools.

Here is the actual case: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f0200/0254.htm

Why doesn't the ABA regulate law schools? I don't know, but maybe it is because most members of the "Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar" and the "Accreditation Committee" are also affiliated with law schools. Sounds like a conflict of interest to me!

Here are the member of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar:
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal ... rship.html

Here are the member of the Accreditation Committee:
--LinkRemoved--

[robotclubmember]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1151032 ... earch.html

another article (from 2006!) to encourage prospective students

[ahduth]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1151032 ... earch.html

another article (from 2006!) to encourage prospective students

He's from NYLS, and he's promoting a book:

Mr. Stracher is the publisher of the New York Law School Law Review and the author of "Double Billing: A Young Lawyer's Tale of Greed, Sex, Lies and the Pursuit of a Swivel Chair."

[AreJay711]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1151032 ... earch.html

another article (from 2006!) to encourage prospective students

Ahh, the days in undergrad pumping my GPA in hopes of easy-to-get biglaw