how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point? Forum

[ManoftheHour]

Orange county does not have a good law school. And there's still a lawyer shortage in CA (and the rest of the country for that matter) since half of those appearing in California courts do not have the benefit of attorney representation. Those jobs just don't pay as much or garner the envy of TLS posters, but they certainly exist at the right price. I agree, though, that UCI, like almost every school in California, is only worth considering at this point if you get a substantial scholarship.

What you say is true. There are enough lawyers for the rich and middle class, but not enough for the poor. However, the poor can't afford to pay legal fees. The "right price" that you speak of is probably not far from pennies. No lawyer will work for that little, especially when they have mountains of debt. The "right price" you're thinking of is probably less than minimum wage because that's all many poor Americans can afford. Think of it this way. Everyone wants representation in court. I don't know anyone that would rather go alone. However, if I were poor and all I can afford is $7/hr for an attorney, where the F#$% am I going to find an attorney that will take my case?! Unless there's some kind of government program that would subsidize it, most poor people will never get legal representation.

Creating the UCI law school doesn't help solve this problem at all. Everyone that graduates there is going to be representing the same rich/middle class/government/corporate people as everyone else. They're just adding more graduates to an already saturated market.

[zman]

We have too many lawyers under the current system. No serious individual would disagree with that. However, if you want to rid of some these laws that force you to go to law school and occupational licensing laws and so on that drive up the cost of services and protect the big law firms from competition then we clearly would have a shortage because it would be affordable for lower class people.

[zman]

Dr Dre is out of control at this point and he is the opening the 2013-2014 prospective classes of various law schools?? Seriously?? Shouldn't an admin do that sort of thing?

[sublime]

..

[pluto111]

Case in point: As someone who chose UCI with a full tuition scholarship over 25k/year at USC, I will be a whole lot more receptive to working for less affluent clients once I graduate. If UCI didn't exist, I'd be going to USC in the fall.

Will I work for $7/hour after I graduate? Hopefully not. Will I be willing to take a substantially lower paying job than I would have coming out of USC if it means doing work I feel good about? Yes.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

There is not an attorney shortage in any state--willing to bet that every single in fact has a surplus. We are, after all, still producing twice as many lawyers per year as we need. We may have a misallocation of lawyers--i.e. we need more lawyers for Joe Six-Pack work and less for Wall Street, but then law school would have to be cheap enough to make it a worthwhile option. However, don't subscribe to the idea that there is a "shortage" anywhere--it's a TTT lie to trick accreditors into thinking a profit scam is for the common betterment.

[pluto111]

It's not a misallocation. It's a shortage. If everyone who needed a lawyer could have one, there would not be enough lawyers. We're not producing twice as many lawyers as we need; we're producing twice as many lawyers as the market can afford. I'm not saying this as evidence in the "TTT" sense that more people should go to law school because, look, there's a shortage! In this market, I absolutely agree that fewer people should go to law school. And, just as importantly I'd guess, fewer people should stay in law school if they don't like it/are performing poorly.

But it speaks to my point that if UCI is providing a cheaper alternative to the two big law schools in Southern Cal, that's a positive thing as it may allow/encourage more people in the area to focus on the underserved populations rather than gunning for big law firms. And there is definitely a shortage of lawyers who are willing or financially able to represent poor people in LA and Orange County.

[BigZuck]

Evidence that UCI is, right now, providing a cheaper alternative to UCLA/USC?

[pluto111]

Case in point: As someone who chose UCI with a full tuition scholarship over 25k/year at USC, I will be a whole lot more receptive to working for less affluent clients once I graduate. If UCI didn't exist, I'd be going to USC in the fall.

[sublime]

..

[TheThriller]

Case in point: As someone who chose UCI with a full tuition scholarship over 25k/year at USC, I will be a whole lot more receptive to working for less affluent clients once I graduate. If UCI didn't exist, I'd be going to USC in the fall.

You can't quote yourself dude

[zman]

It's not a misallocation. It's a shortage. If everyone who needed a lawyer could have one, there would not be enough lawyers. We're not producing twice as many lawyers as we need; we're producing twice as many lawyers as the market can afford. I'm not saying this as evidence in the "TTT" sense that more people should go to law school because, look, there's a shortage! In this market, I absolutely agree that fewer people should go to law school. And, just as importantly I'd guess, fewer people should stay in law school if they don't like it/are performing poorly.

But it speaks to my point that if UCI is providing a cheaper alternative to the two big law schools in Southern Cal, that's a positive thing as it may allow/encourage more people in the area to focus on the underserved populations rather than gunning for big law firms. And there is definitely a shortage of lawyers who are willing or financially able to represent poor people in LA and Orange County.

They are NOT providing a cheaper alternative. They charge 50 a year in in a hood that's more expensive than USC and UCLA. That's not a cheaper alternative. What are you talking about?? The 2012 class got a free ride ride but that is over.

[zman]

oh yeah I see people jumped all over it so quickly before I finished my post.

[timbs4339]

But it speaks to my point that if UCI is providing a cheaper alternative to the two big law schools in Southern Cal, that's a positive thing as it may allow/encourage more people in the area to focus on the underserved populations rather than gunning for big law firms. And there is definitely a shortage of lawyers who are willing or financially able to represent poor people in LA and Orange County.

There are other law schools in Southern California that are "cheaper" (in the sense that a student admitted to USC/UCLA would get a scholly to them) then UCI. What you want is a certain combination of "prestige" and "cost." You could of course get that by going to UCD or UCH, but then you'd have to leave SoCal.

So then what you're really looking for is your perfect law school. That's wonderful, but it's not good policy.

[NYstate]

Is there any data anywhere that suggests people paying less for law school get jobs working with under served populations? I don't know anyone at my firm, including me, who would have preferred to work with undeserved populations rather than a major corporate or litigation practice. Yes, people plan on biglaw to repay debt, but how many of them are looking for exit options serving the underserved? We do pro bono to help out, but no one wants to do this full time.

On top of that, even getting a job working with the underserved is extremely competitive because the jobs are so limited. How does paying less for law school mean that there will be jobs working for the poor?

I don't buy that cheaper law schools will mean that a mass of lawyers will suddenly go to work for people that don't have money.

Can you explain the data? And how this is supposed to work out? Which under served populations do you mean? Those below the poverty rate? They have no money. The middle class? Are they under served?

[guano]

Is there any data anywhere that suggests people paying less for law school get jobs working with under served populations? I don't know anyone at my firm, including me, who would have preferred to work with undeserved populations rather than a major corporate or litigation practice. Yes, people plan on biglaw to repay debt, but how many of them are looking for exit options serving the underserved? We do pro bono to help out, but no one wants to do this full time.

On top of that, even getting a job working with the underserved is extremely competitive because the jobs are so limited. How does paying less for law school mean that there will be jobs working for the poor?

I don't buy that cheaper law schools will mean that a mass of lawyers will suddenly go to work for people that don't have money.

Can you explain the data? And how this is supposed to work out? Which under served populations do you mean? Those below the poverty rate? They have no money. The middle class? Are they under served?

[timbs4339]

Is there any data anywhere that suggests people paying less for law school get jobs working with under served populations? I don't know anyone at my firm, including me, who would have preferred to work with undeserved populations rather than a major corporate or litigation practice. Yes, people plan on biglaw to repay debt, but how many of them are looking for exit options serving the underserved? We do pro bono to help out, but no one wants to do this full time.

On top of that, even getting a job working with the underserved is extremely competitive because the jobs are so limited. How does paying less for law school mean that there will be jobs working for the poor?

I don't buy that cheaper law schools will mean that a mass of lawyers will suddenly go to work for people that don't have money.

Can you explain the data? And how this is supposed to work out? Which under served populations do you mean? Those below the poverty rate? They have no money. The middle class? Are they under served?

It's bullshit. The way to give underprivileged legal services is to pay lawyers to provide them legal work. Since Legal Aid is struggling to even survive, and states have no monies to pay public defenders, the justice gap will continue to grow.

The idea I've seen floated is that people who don't have a lot of debt and who want to be lawyers will be able to start their own practices at rates that are significantly lower than what existing lawyers provide. Since this is America in 2013, the buzzword is of course INNOVATION- us millennials will be able to Facebookicize the law and provide it for like $20 or some stupid crap. Or that no debt means we will take 35K lawyer jobs rather than 50K non-lawyer jobs. The more cynical explanation is by glutting the market with entry-level lawyers, firms will be able to pay less for associates, which will allow them to charge lower rates to clients, which will result in more people who can pay (which of course ignores how law firms really work and is just passing costs between two groups of broke, indebted people).

[Dr. Dre]

Why are people equating UCI Law with helping the poor and disadvantaged?

[bjsesq]

Why are people equating UCI Law with helping the poor and disadvantaged?

Because you will be increasing their numbers, and therefore influence, when you graduate?

[Dr. Dre]

nah

[ManoftheHour]

It's still better than UC HasTTTTings. Man, that school is such a shiTTTThole. 46% employment - 7% school funded = 39%.

Perfect example of why US News rankings are bs.

[pluto111]

Is there any data anywhere that suggests people paying less for law school get jobs working with under served populations? I don't know anyone at my firm, including me, who would have preferred to work with undeserved populations rather than a major corporate or litigation practice. Yes, people plan on biglaw to repay debt, but how many of them are looking for exit options serving the underserved? We do pro bono to help out, but no one wants to do this full time.

On top of that, even getting a job working with the underserved is extremely competitive because the jobs are so limited. How does paying less for law school mean that there will be jobs working for the poor?

I don't buy that cheaper law schools will mean that a mass of lawyers will suddenly go to work for people that don't have money.

Can you explain the data? And how this is supposed to work out? Which under served populations do you mean? Those below the poverty rate? They have no money. The middle class? Are they under served?

A) The independent survey you took of a handful of corporate lawyers at your firm hardly proves that no one wants to work for the underserved who isn't currently doing so. To your point, almost everyone I know who works in big law hates what they do and constantly complains/humblebrags about how they wish they had the financial independence to work on a cause they believed in. If we want to move beyond trading anecdotal evidence, feel free to read this article to get more examples/data showing how reducing student debt would lead to more public service lawyers: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1139 ... oney-dries.

B) Jobs working for public interest or the federal government are extraordinarily competitive. I assume these are the jobs you're referring to. Jobs representing poor people are not competitive (see the statistic that 50% of people in California courts don't have any legal representation). I'm not saying I, or anyone else, will be able to work for $15k/year. But I'll be able to accept a lower salary than I otherwise could.

C) Did I say that a "mass of lawyers" would "suddenly" go work for people who don't have money? No. I suggested that I--personally--chose to go to UCI in part because the money I'll be saving over USC will give me greater freedom to take jobs I want, with less focus on salary. People have probably in the past chosen Chapman for the same reason. If UCI is going to occupy a place below UCLA/USC and above a school like Chapman, then it will probably provide many other people with a cheaper alternative to the top 2 schools in Southern Cal (as in, they'll get into USC/UCLA and get into UCI with money).

For the record, I am very much in favor of more public funding going to legal services for the underserved. That's the only way that most people will realistically get better representation and adding another law school is not going to necessarily help or hurt the situation. I'm merely suggesting that UCI provided a good enough option for me to justify turning down USC and saving ~$100,000, so I'm pretty happy it exists.

[bananasplit19]

They are NOT providing a cheaper alternative. They charge 50 a year in in a hood that's more expensive than USC and UCLA. That's not a cheaper alternative. What are you talking about?? The 2012 class got a free ride ride but that is over.

FWIW, while housing in Irvine/OC may be expensive, if you were to attend UCI law, you'd have guaranteed campus housing, which is quite cheap. I was looking at under $800/month including utilities and parking. So while the tuition is certainly an issue, I don't think people can cite COL as a deterrent for UCI.

[NYstate]

The answer is to pay existing lawyers a livable wage to represent the poor. Not use the fact that the poor are under served as a reason to start on expensive, unaccredited law school.

There is a gap in funding for these lawyers, not a lack of lawyers who will do the work.

[pluto111]

As I said in the last post, "adding another law school is not going to necessarily help or hurt the situation"-- The "situation" being that the poor are under served.