Top Law Schools

.

this is a bad idea for so many reasons.

Also, lol at the ABA trying to enforce this

If I heard that suggestion from one of my professors I doubt I would have been able to bite my tongue. Did you ask him if he would expect the average law school tuition to be stickered at ~150k?

He pretty much just suggested that because he doesn't want to see enrollment be reduced, which would be detrimental to his sector of the legal industry.

Ask this "scholar" if we should do the same for law school professors, capping salaries so that all schools can get quality teaching.

mr.hands wrote:this is a bad idea for so many reasons.

Also, lol at the ABA trying to enforce this

Yea ABA cannot legally enforce this.

Also LOL at the idea that employers hire as many employees as they can afford. That's some retarded trickle down shit.

Firms would work us just as hard at 60k as they do at 160k. Why wouldn't they?

ajax adonis wrote:So I was having lunch with my professor today and he/she told me, in effect, this: "The ABA/some governing body should institute a hard cap on big law firm associates' salaries. Then, law firms would have to hire more lawyers. So if you say that the max pay will be $60K, then you could hire more than twice as many attorneys!"

I was polite and didn't want to argue, but do any of you think this would actually work? Am I a stupid capitalist for thinking this would be a bad idea?

Share your thoughts.

Sounds like an antitrust issue to me. It's not like the ABA is MLB or anything. They can't get away with that. Hell, state agencies are having trouble just enforcing scope of practice laws. 2013 WL 2367806.

Perhaps if they cap 3 years tuition at $30K total and law professor's salaries at $50K.

ajax adonis wrote:So I was having lunch with my professor today and he/she told me, in effect, this: "The ABA/some governing body should institute a hard cap on big law firm associates' salaries. Then, law firms would have to hire more lawyers. So if you say that the max pay will be $60K, then you could hire more than twice as many attorneys!"

I was polite and didn't want to argue, but do any of you think this would actually work? Am I a stupid capitalist for thinking this would be a bad idea?

Share your thoughts.

How does the amount paid in salary equate to the number of lawyers needed? I don't understand this logic. The number of lawyers needed correlates to the work needed to be done- as the recent Weil and WilmerHale layoffs attest.

This professor needs to get out of denial and understand that over enrollment and continually increasing tuition is the problem.

Problem is that ABA won't put a hard cap on law school enrollment and number of law schools based on projected needs.

anonymous2012 wrote:Problem is that ABA won't put a hard cap on law school enrollment and number of law schools based on projected needs.

It can't.

.

I'm betting the top firms would just start offering $100k worth of benefits.

I imagine some firms would hire a few more associates, but even if they did, your chance of making partner would be correspondingly worse, and the mass firings would be worse during downturns.

Desert Fox wrote:

anonymous2012 wrote:Problem is that ABA won't put a hard cap on law school enrollment and number of law schools based on projected needs.

It can't.

Yeah, they definitely can't. Unfortunately, what most people would like the ABA to do is prohibited by antitrust laws. Didn't' they already get sued for withholding accreditation a few years ago?

Edit: Yep, there it is. http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/americ1.htm. They are still under a consent decree even.

kalvano wrote:Perhaps if they cap 3 years tuition at $30K total and law professor's salaries at $50K.

With living expenses and interest, people would still be in debt for 100k. It'd only make sense if law schools paid you 20k a year to cover your living expenses (and school/books were free). Then, sure, go ahead and cap salaries.

Kind of depressing to hear that there are law school professors so misinformed about basic economics. What if we capped law professor salaries at 60K so that more JD's could find professor jobs?

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

This reminds me of the Milton Friedman quote about digging with spoons instead of shovels.

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/10/spoons-shovels/

.

fluffythepenguin wrote:Kind of depressing to hear that there are law school professors so misinformed about basic economics. What if we capped law professor salaries at 60K so that more JD's could find professor jobs?

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

Nice work on the link. OP, you should email that to your professor. Seems like a courteous way to disagree.

NYstate wrote:

ajax adonis wrote:So I was having lunch with my professor today and he/she told me, in effect, this: "The ABA/some governing body should institute a hard cap on big law firm associates' salaries. Then, law firms would have to hire more lawyers. So if you say that the max pay will be $60K, then you could hire more than twice as many attorneys!"

I was polite and didn't want to argue, but do any of you think this would actually work? Am I a stupid capitalist for thinking this would be a bad idea?

Share your thoughts.

How does the amount paid in salary equate to the number of lawyers needed? I don't understand this logic. The number of lawyers needed correlates to the work needed to be done- as the recent Weil and WilmerHale layoffs attest.

This professor needs to get out of denial and understand that over enrollment and continually increasing tuition is the problem.

Exactly...It is a completely absurd idea....But if it were, in fact a possibility, the only thing that would really go up would be Profit Per Partner.

I actually now think it makes sense for firms to hire fewer associates and pay them more. For one, and least insightful, the increased office costs would not give the firm the full savings of reduced salaries so if the salary was cut in half it isn't the case the firm could hire twice as many associates. Similarly, the training costs per an associate (both out of pocket and hidden costs) wouldn't drop much. Finally, there are probably efficiency gains from completely owning someones soul, not the least of which is faster learning by the associate.

DEO3029 wrote:

NYstate wrote:

ajax adonis wrote:So I was having lunch with my professor today and he/she told me, in effect, this: "The ABA/some governing body should institute a hard cap on big law firm associates' salaries. Then, law firms would have to hire more lawyers. So if you say that the max pay will be $60K, then you could hire more than twice as many attorneys!"

I was polite and didn't want to argue, but do any of you think this would actually work? Am I a stupid capitalist for thinking this would be a bad idea?

Share your thoughts.

How does the amount paid in salary equate to the number of lawyers needed? I don't understand this logic. The number of lawyers needed correlates to the work needed to be done- as the recent Weil and WilmerHale layoffs attest.

This professor needs to get out of denial and understand that over enrollment and continually increasing tuition is the problem.

Exactly...It is a completely absurd idea....But if it were, in fact a possibility, the only thing that would really go up would be Profit Per Partner.

It would presumably cut into that too because the increase in the number of workers means an increase in benefits costs. It's just all around a really bad idea.

I hope that professor is nowhere near any private or commercial law subjects.

Was it this guy?

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/01/law-prof ... t-his-own/

.

ajax adonis wrote:

rad lulz wrote:Was it this guy?

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/01/law-prof ... t-his-own/

Nope, but it's disheartening that other professors would feel this way. And it's further disheartening when such ideas are published in HuffPo for all the world to see and believe.

If the comments on Huffpo are any indication, people don't believe it

.