Passing the LSAT Forum

[TheSpanishMain]

Again, that's remarkably paternalistic. I don't disagree that the decision to attend a TTT is too risky for my taste, but not everyone shares our appetite for risk.

Someone could still indulge their tolerance for risk at an unaccredited law school without access to federal loans. You can ruin your own life all you want, but you're not entitled to the government advancing you money to do so.

[Cade McNown]

Someone could still indulge their tolerance for risk at an unaccredited law school without access to federal loans. You can ruin your own life all you want, but you're not entitled to the government advancing you money to do so.

I don't think the Fed currently pays loans for unaccredited schools. Private lenders take care of that.

[Cade McNown]

There should not be an increase in the number of lawyers. The brookings institute could care less if were all unemployed.

Again, that's a Selfish reason for regulation. Why should the justification for regulation be economic protectionism for JDs? Also, the Brookings Institute author would care immensely if "all" law students were unemployed. Its goal is competition, not collapse of the legal market. Try reading the article before you form an opinion about it.

[TheSpanishMain]

Someone could still indulge their tolerance for risk at an unaccredited law school without access to federal loans. You can ruin your own life all you want, but you're not entitled to the government advancing you money to do so.

I don't think the Fed currently pays loans for unaccredited schools. Private lenders take care of that.

Sure, but I'm arguing that a fair amount of schools should lose accreditation for ripping off suckers for federal loan money. Control the number of accredited law schools and make class sizes roughly align with the market demand for new lawyers. If, once we've done that, someone wants to roll the dice on Cooley Coastal School of Phoenix Law and can find the money to do it somewhere other than the US taxpayer, have a blast.

[HRomanus]

Intervention into the law school market is much more complicated than you're admitting. For a perspective on why we should actually increase the number of lawyers, see the Brookings Institute. Whether or not you'll agree with the article (I don't like its conclusion), it at least includes a more comprehensive cost-benefit analysis than you're likely to get from TLSers.

Re: the article: I don't particularly support the assumption that lower cost of legal services = more demand for legal services = better legal employment. In the case of wills, an AARP study showed that 41% of baby boomers don't have wills. Of that group, only 21% cited expense as a reason. So I don't think demand for legal services will skyrocket due to lower cost. But even if it did, wills are not the bread and butter of good employment. Corporations whose business actually sustains the legal field are notoriously interested in legal prestige and disinterested in cost. Deregulating the legal field will have no affect on BigLaw and the T14. It will only increase unemployment or underemployment for everyone else - including those who don't go to law school.

And if you're ready to drastically reduce the supply of lawyers, given that a person has a right to an attorney only as a criminal defendant, what's your solution for indigents and ordinary folk who will no longer be able to afford a lawyer for their everyday little-person problems, e.g. drafting a will or a contract, small-dollar civil disputes, etc.?

This is insanity. If there's such a demand for lawyers, why is unemployment so high? Why do solo firms close so rapidly? The c/o 2013 was historically large and suffered horrible unemployment, despite the improving legal market.

[Cade McNown]

Sure, but I'm arguing that a fair amount of schools should lose accreditation for ripping off suckers for federal loan money. Control the number of accredited law schools and make class sizes roughly align with the market demand for new lawyers. If, once we've done that, someone wants to roll the dice on Cooley Coastal School of Phoenix Law and can find the money to do it somewhere other than the US taxpayer, have a blast.

Totally fair. Tightening accreditation would hurt TTTs, help current law students and recent unemployed graduates, and potentially protect some unsuspecting low-ability would-be law students. Still, I haven't heard anyone say what they'd do for those who depend on cheap legal services. I'm not saying one side of the trade off is more important than the other, but we should at least acknowledge that not everyone worth caring about would benefit from tightened accreditation.

[phillywc]

Nice idea in theory, although obviously would never happen. Anything higher than 150 as a barrier seems a bit too much. We don't want schools with 141 medians, obviously, but 150 25th% for some of the lower ranked schools in this new system would cut out a lot of the shit while still leaving room for a few snowflakes.

[Cade McNown]

And if you're ready to drastically reduce the supply of lawyers, given that a person has a right to an attorney only as a criminal defendant, what's your solution for indigents and ordinary folk who will no longer be able to afford a lawyer for their everyday little-person problems, e.g. drafting a will or a contract, small-dollar civil disputes, etc.?

This is insanity. If there's such a demand for lawyers, why is unemployment so high? Why do solo firms close so rapidly? The c/o 2013 was historically large and suffered horrible unemployment, despite the improving legal market.

It's not insanity. You're mistaken to take employment figures as your marker for economic efficiency. The only market mechanism that guarantees full employment for its suppliers is a Monopoly. The competition rationale for deregulating the legal profession expects some of the profession to be unemployed and underemployed, because it's precisely the surplus of lawyers that keeps legal fees down. Underemployment among suppliers is not inconsistent with high demand for low-price legal services.

[phillywc]

And if you're ready to drastically reduce the supply of lawyers, given that a person has a right to an attorney only as a criminal defendant, what's your solution for indigents and ordinary folk who will no longer be able to afford a lawyer for their everyday little-person problems, e.g. drafting a will or a contract, small-dollar civil disputes, etc.?

This is insanity. If there's such a demand for lawyers, why is unemployment so high? Why do solo firms close so rapidly? The c/o 2013 was historically large and suffered horrible unemployment, despite the improving legal market.

It's not insanity. You're mistaken to take employment figures as your marker for economic efficiency. The only market mechanism that guarantees full employment for its suppliers is a Monopoly. The competition rationale for deregulating the legal profession expects some of the profession to be unemployed and underemployed, because it's precisely the surplus of lawyers that keeps legal fees down. Underemployment among suppliers is not inconsistent with high demand for low-price legal services.

It may not be insanity but it is both dickish and incorrect.

[Cade McNown]

It's not insanity. You're mistaken to take employment figures as your marker for economic efficiency. The only market mechanism that guarantees full employment for its suppliers is a Monopoly. The competition rationale for deregulating the legal profession expects some of the profession to be unemployed and underemployed, because it's precisely the surplus of lawyers that keeps legal fees down. Underemployment among suppliers is not inconsistent with high demand for low-price legal services.

It may not be insanity but it is both dickish and incorrect.

lol. Please elaborate!

[HRomanus]

And if you're ready to drastically reduce the supply of lawyers, given that a person has a right to an attorney only as a criminal defendant, what's your solution for indigents and ordinary folk who will no longer be able to afford a lawyer for their everyday little-person problems, e.g. drafting a will or a contract, small-dollar civil disputes, etc.?

This is insanity. If there's such a demand for lawyers, why is unemployment so high? Why do solo firms close so rapidly? The c/o 2013 was historically large and suffered horrible unemployment, despite the improving legal market.

It's not insanity. You're mistaken to take employment figures as your marker for economic efficiency. The only market mechanism that guarantees full employment for its suppliers is a Monopoly. The competition rationale for deregulating the legal profession expects some of the profession to be unemployed and underemployed, because it's precisely the surplus of lawyers that keeps legal fees down. Underemployment among suppliers is not inconsistent with high demand for low-price legal services.

I think you are severely overestimating the demand for low-price legal services. From the study I posted above, the majority of people without wills don't have them because they procrastinate (34%) or think they're unnecessary (22%). Being cheaper isn't going to solve either issue. As I said above, even if the demand for wills and other low-price legal services skyrockets, it will only create horrible working conditions for the lawyers trying to subsist off that.

[Cade McNown]

I think you are severely overestimating the demand for low-price legal services. From the study I posted above, the majority of people without wills don't have them because they procrastinate (34%) or think they're unnecessary (22%). Being cheaper isn't going to solve either issue. As I said above, even if the demand for wills and other low-price legal services skyrockets, it will only create horrible working conditions for the lawyers trying to subsist off that.

I don't think you understand. We're talking about a supply-side change--e.g., making law school accreditation more difficult and increasing barriers to entry to the legal profession. Demand for legal services, whether cheap or not, will be unaffected. What will increase is the price.

Your focus on the interests of lawyers is myopic. When you're considering professional regulation of lawyers, you have to think about all stakeholders, not just the lawyers. Lawyers who are self-employed, underemployed, or otherwise struggling to support themselves will either find supplemental sources of income, or voluntarily exit the legal market to pursue another profession. That's how a competitive unregulated market works.

Again, there are good, Unselfish reasons to license and create barriers to entry for the legal profession (i.e. protecting the quality of legal services and the fiduciary nature of the profession). But base economic-protection of JDs is not one such reason.

edit for spacing

[A. Nony Mouse]

The problem I have with the argument about the demand for legal services is that unless law school becomes much less expensive, creating more lawyers isn't going to help provide inexpensive legal services for the under-served, because grads will have too much debt to go into such low-paying positions. There are already too many lawyers who aren't getting jobs, they're not magically serving the under-served because they can't afford to.

And I think it's perfectly fair for JDs to be concerned about the employment outcomes for JDs.

[Cade McNown]

Indebted grads will gladly perform cheap legal services if their alternative is providing no services and earning no income at all (see, e.g., Doc Review jobs). Also, prices won't just increase for the under-served, they'll increase for every consumer of legal services. Its just that only corporate clients and higher wealth individual clients will be able to bear the increase.

And I didn't mean to deride JDs for looking out for their own. Of course JDs should be self-interested. I just don't think our own selfish reasons for wanting to increase barriers to entry like a minimum-LSAT requirement should be conclusive in creating a policy response that touches and concerns the interests of the public at large.

Anyway, my 2c has become my $2. Like OP, I'd be curious to hear what others think.

[A. Nony Mouse]

But indebted grads leave the profession - as you suggested they would - which doesn't create any more legal services.

[Cade McNown]

But indebted grads leave the profession - as you suggested they would - which doesn't create any more legal services.

Some would, sure, but probably new JDs (some indebted, some not) would take their place. I think a competitive labor market for legal services would still grow rather than contract overall.

[HRomanus]

Purely off-topic, but I'd like to point out that I can't take someone with Cade McNown's username and avatar seriously. Apparently he's had success off the football field, but I feel like the username is just a metaphor for the horrible decisions in law school admissions.

[Cade McNown]

My initial goal was to have a All American-like career at UCLA law, sign a lucrative contract out of school to work in Chicago, promptly fade into the background of my profession while still making bank, and eventually retire early to a less strenuous career. Time will tell.

[moneybagsphd]

I think you are severely overestimating the demand for low-price legal services. From the study I posted above, the majority of people without wills don't have them because they procrastinate (34%) or think they're unnecessary (22%). Being cheaper isn't going to solve either issue. As I said above, even if the demand for wills and other low-price legal services skyrockets, it will only create horrible working conditions for the lawyers trying to subsist off that.

I don't think you understand. We're talking about a supply-side change--e.g., making law school accreditation more difficult and increasing barriers to entry to the legal profession. Demand for legal services, whether cheap or not, will be unaffected. What will increase is the price.

Your focus on the interests of lawyers is myopic. When you're considering professional regulation of lawyers, you have to think about all stakeholders, not just the lawyers. Lawyers who are self-employed, underemployed, or otherwise struggling to support themselves will either find supplemental sources of income, or voluntarily exit the legal market to pursue another profession. That's how a competitive unregulated market works.

Again, there are good, Unselfish reasons to license and create barriers to entry for the legal profession (i.e. protecting the quality of legal services and the fiduciary nature of the profession). But base economic-protection of JDs is not one such reason.

edit for spacing

So much stupid it's hard to know where to begin.

[03152016]

but they've demonstrably failed to help students, by and large, make more informed and reasonable decisions about their education

students, by and large, [should] make more informed and reasonable decisions about their education

Again, that's remarkably paternalistic.

...

[Cade McNown]

students, by and large, [should] make more informed and reasonable decisions about their education
that's why there should be a more robust regime, whether it's a cut-off or something else

Again, that's remarkably paternalistic. I don't disagree that the decision to attend a TTT is too risky for my taste, but not everyone shares our appetite for risk. And if you're ready to drastically reduce the supply of lawyers, given that a person has a right to an attorney only as a criminal defendant, what's your solution for indigents and ordinary folk who will no longer be able to afford a lawyer for their everyday little-person problems, e.g. drafting a will or a contract, small-dollar civil disputes, etc.? Do nothing?

Intervention into the law school market is much more complicated than you're admitting.

...

[Cade McNown]

So much stupid it's hard to know where to begin.

If it's all stupid, you could begin anywhere. Such as with intro economics.

[03152016]

not sure how a misquote manages to happen on an internet forum
but when you're making the argument that i'm being paternalistic
it's not a great look to edit my quote in a way that makes me sound more paternalistic
just sayin'

[Cade McNown]

I don't think abbreviating your quote changed its meaning. You said (1) information disclosure has not stopped people from making uninformed and unreasonable decisions about their education, so (2) a stronger regulatory regime that would keep some such people from going to law school is needed. Paternalism refers to the desire to restrain the freedom of another for their own good. How is your opinion anything but paternalistic?

[NYSprague]

I wish I had the power to stop many of the people on this forum from going to law school. And the people here are relatively well informed.
I don't think it is paternalistic to try to keep people from falling victim to the lies that have been told about law school for decades.
But if it is paternalistic to prevent people from fraud, Im fne with it.