Wednesday, May 14, 2014
The SC Commission on Higher Education (CHE) will be voting on the sale of the Charleston School of Law (CSOL) to Infilaw on Monday, May 19. The CHE is holding hearings about the matter on Friday, May 16. Interested parties in favor of the sale have represented that the CSOL faculty supports the sale, and that is simply not true.
This week, the faculty of CSOL presented two letters to the CHE. One was openly signed by tenured faculty members who felt they could not stay silent, even in the face of possible retribution for their opposition to the sale. The other was a letter from an attorney representing other members of the faculty certifying that a "super majority" of the faculty does not support a sale to Infilaw. Both letters can be found at:
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
I forget most graduation speeches, but I was privileged to hear Congressman John Lewis's address to the Ole Miss law school graduates on May 10. He is truly a great American hero, and is the most inspiring speaker I have ever heard. He is also one of the nicest and most humble people I have ever met. http://news.olemiss.edu/civil-rights-leader-tells-graduates-to-use-degree-for-change/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=civil-rights-leader-tells-graduates-to-use-degree-for-change#.U3Eq7PJLp8E
Who is speaking at your law school this year? Please comment with the names of your commencement speakers.
UPDATE on Speakers: NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman at Syracuse University College of Law
Harold Hongju Koh, 22nd Legal Adviser to the Department of State and current Sterling Professor of International Law at Yale Law School (and former Dean of Yale Law School). will speak at University of Denver Sturm College of Law (thanks to Dean Martin Katz)
Monday, May 12, 2014
This essay is by Dean Frank H. Wu, who is Chancellor & Dean of University of California Hastings College of the Law. This essay was previoiusly published at the Huffington Post.
In a recent report on the state of legal education, Moody's, the credit rating service, noted in passing that tuition cuts are not necessarily an effective tactic for improving enrollment. The rationale is important for people to understand.
Tuition cuts might not be all that they appear to be. The reason is virtually all institutions of higher education already discount tuition to a great extent. Almost all of them also are tuition dependent: Their operating budget comes from what students pay them.
That is the case for the highly-regarded and the not so reputable. Public institutions and those that value public service typically return a significant amount of their tuition revenue to their students in the form of need-based financial aid. Other schools that wish to recruit highly-credentialed students award scholarships on the basis of those metrics. Some of the moneys for these purposes may come from endowments, but much of it comes from what students themselves are putting into the coffers.
Whether it is meant to help many students by offering the opportunity for higher education or buy a few of them by rewarding earlier academic records, the budgetary consequence is the same. As with most other ventures, there is a difference between gross and net.
So a tuition cut may well leave many, perhaps most, individuals worse off as compared to the baseline. Here are the consequences of a cut to tuition.
Assume before it publicizes a cut, a school has a program oriented toward need-based grants. It may be giving as many as three-quarters of its students such packages. Only a quarter of them are paying the full sticker price. Three-quarters pay less; the one-quarter make that possible.
Now after a cut, that school has two choices. (We can put to the side the equivalent of money falling from the sky: alternate revenue sources. They exist, but they usually are an order of magnitude less than what would be needed to offset significant tuition decreases.)
The first option is a real cut. The school could reduce expenditures in a manner commensurate to its loss of total tuition coming in. To be pointed about what that means: Since human resources are the bulk of the budget, such a real cut means faculty, staff, or both, would have to be paid less or be laid off. Savings from the non-personnel share of the budget are not likely to be sufficient to make ends meet.
The second option is the illusion of a "cut." The school could reduce what insiders call the "discount rate" to exactly the amount that makes up for the tuition drop. Again to be pointed about what that means: Given that most students previously received generous grants, most of them end up actually paying more. The students who were not receiving grants prior are the only ones who in fact benefit.
To illustrate it with numbers, consider the simplest possible example. Suppose Acme Law School had two students (in this hypothetical, each of them stands in for hundreds who are treated identically); and a "rack rate" of $50,000 per year. Alpha, who is impoverished, receives a $10,000 grant; Bravo, who is well-to-do, receives no grant.
The real cost of attendance for a year (not including living expenses) is as follows. Alpha expends $40,000 ($50,000 tuition less a grant); Bravo, $50,000 (the stated tuition with no break).
Imagine then Acme Law School that announces a tuition cut of 10 percent or $5,000. Its new, much-praised "flat rate" is $45,000.
But the leaders of Acme Law School do not wish to affect its programs. That frames their intentions in the most positive terms. They need to maintain the same overall revenue the school was receiving from Alpha and Bravo notwithstanding the cut, which is $90,000 (the $40,000 from the former plus the $50,000 from the latter).
Accordingly, to achieve their goals, they direct that the financial aid program be zeroed out. Alpha and Bravo each pay $45,000. The school receives $90,000 as it always has. Transaction costs are lowered as a side benefit.
Look at what has happened to Alpha and Bravo. Alpha pays more than before, $45,000 instead of $40,000; Bravo pays less, $45,000 instead of $50,000. Alpha has a subsidy taken away; Bravo benefits.
Note too this is not ideological. If you object to Alpha receiving need-based financial aid to begin with, change the example to a credentials-based scholarship. So in this variation, Alpha, who has scored at the top of the range on standardized tests and been valedictorian from her undergraduate alma mater, would have been offered a $10,000 scholarship. That is eliminated with the tuition cut.
Thus, at a school that has announced a tuition cut, there must be, sooner or later, an announcement of the real cut that matches it. Absent that, the inference that can be made is that only the illusion of a cut has been presented. It is marketing, puffery, call it what you will.
The same can be said of flat-rate tuition programs more generally. It's no different than flat-rate taxation proposals. The resulting flat-rate may or may not be a better deal than varying rates, depending on a student's individual situation.
All of the above is exacerbated by the lower levels of enrollment at law schools. A school trying to balance its budget, as all of them need to do, can compensate for lower enrollment with higher tuition, or vice versa. But simultaneous downward trends on enrollment and tuition cannot be sustained without even greater real cuts to spending, financial aid, or both.
Whatever people think about the cost of higher education, it is important to understand the choices that decision makers face. Much of what looks like reform may be symbolic.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
While this is off the topic of legal education, I wanted to weigh in on the Supreme Court's decision in Town of Greece, New York v. Galloway, No. 12–696, slip op. at 8 (Sup. Ct. 2014).
As a southerner, and a member of a minority religion, I am used to prayer in public governmental settings. People have asked me if I am offended when a person offering the prayer or invocation prays in Jesus's name, and I am not. What bothers me is when a person in a public setting says "we pray this..." The "we" is the word that I find problematic, and the "we" is what the Supreme Court failed to understand.
At our law school graduation this coming Saturday I would never presume to speak for everyone, or even anyone else in that audience on a political issue. Why do people offering a prayer assume that they know how everyone else in a public gathering prays? Prayer is very personal, and some people exercise their First Amendment rights by choosing not to pray, at all.
While I am not a fan of prayer at public gatherings, I am happy to tolerate it (and the Supreme Court has said I must accept it) if the person praying would simply say "I pray this..." I would fully support that person's right to express their beliefs in public. I do not grant them the right, or authority, to pray for me, and neither should the Supreme Court.
Friday, May 2, 2014
Congratulations to Andy, and to my friends at Texas A&M. I do think it is interesting that the press release refers to Andy as the inaugural dean of the law school, since the law school has been in existence for almost 25 years as Texas Wesleyan.
Thursday, May 1, 2014
The South Carolina Commission on Higher Education (CHE) has decided it needs more time to review information and public comments it has received in reference to the proposed sale of the Charleston School of Law to Naples, Florida based Infilaw.
Members of a CHE licensing panel said they received more than 100 pages documents over the past three days and asked for additional time. Several members came with lists of questions for InfiLaw officials.
The panel will hold a special meeting on May 19 and present their recommendation to the full commission at its June 5 meeting. In addition to CHE approval for the sale, Infilaw needs approval by the ABA. An ABA site team visited the school earlier this semester.
Friday, April 25, 2014
Maryann Jones, Dean Emeritus of Western State, is the Chair of the Florida Coastal Dean Search. She was kind enough to share the process being used by the school to conduct the search. It is:
Florida Coastal School of Law (FCSL) is conducting its dean search in compliance with ABA Standards. The process is designed to be extremely inclusive, with participation by all relevant stakeholders, to include faculty, staff, students, board members, and alumni. Candidates are thoroughly vetted by the faculty, which has significant representation on the Dean Search Committee. The Committee ultimately makes recommendations to the Board of Directors, which makes the final decision.
The FCSL Search Committee began the application collection process in fall 2013. At that time, the Committee began to review resumes and invited a select group of candidates for telephone interviews. Candidates who successfully completed the phone interviews were invited to participate in an external assessment. Based upon the telephone interviews as well as the external assessment, the committee chose a group of candidates to proceed to the campus interview stage, wherein the candidate met with groups of faculty, students, staff, and administrators.
After on-campus meetings are completed, the Committee will seek feedback from faculty students and staff, and recommend final candidates for potential consideration to the Board of Directors. The Committee is required to recommend six candidates to the President and Board of Directors, and will continue the process until six candidates are selected.
We respect the privacy of each candidate and treat the details of the process as confidential to maintain the integrity of the process and the respect for all individuals involved. We are confident that this process will result in the selection of a great leader for Florida Coastal School of Law.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
The editors of this blog have received disturbing reports from sources inside the Florida Coastal School of Law regarding its dean search.
We have been told that the search itself has been fairly typical. Applicants were screened by a search committee, which then selected candidates for in-depth phone interviews. Those selected to move on from the phone interviews then went through multiple interviews and assessments with outside talent evaluation agencies. From that process, the seven finalists were chosen for on-campus interviews.
The on-campus process involved dinner with the President of the school, and then a meeting with the staff and faculty during a series of small groups sessions the following day. Each candidate was to give a presentation on the candidate’s vision for the school to the full faculty at lunch the day of the interview. That is fairly standard for dean searches nationwide.
One oddity was that the faculty was told they could only exclude one of the seven candidates from consideration. In effect, that means that the faculty has very little role in selecting the dean from the six remaining candidates. That is odd, but not particularly alarming, provided that the faculty had a significant role in the selection of candidates.
The disturbing part of the report involves a candidate who raised concerns about the school’s declining student credentials and bar pass rates. That candidate was asked to leave in the middle of the lunch presentation. The candidate resisted, but was told that security would be called to remove the candidate from campus. This all happened in the view of about 40 faculty and staff present at this presentation, which was being recorded so others who were teaching class could see it later.
Th econcerns raised by the dean candidate are supported by publicly available information showing that the 2013 entering class at Coastal had the following 75/50/25 LSAT profile: (148/144/141). Reports indicate that the students who have placed seat deposits in 2014 have a virtually identical profile as the 2013 entering class.
The LSAT in 2008 and 2009 was (153/150/147). In 2010 the numbers were (152/149/146). The decline continued to in the succeeding years (151/147/145) in 2011 and (151/146/143) in 2012.
As might have been predicted, the weaker entering class of 2010 had a low bar pass rate, 67% for first time takers on the July 2013 Florida bar. This was the first time in several years that Florida Coastal had dropped below 70%.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Registration has opened online for the
Second National Symposium on Experiential Education in Law
June 13 – 15, 2014 in Greensboro, North Carolina
Hosted by Elon University School of Law and the Alliance for Experiential Learning in Law
Featured speakers include William C. Hubbard, President Elect of the American Bar Association, and Bill Henderson, Professor of Law, Maurer School of Law at Indiana University at Bloomington
The registration fee is $100. Visit law.elon.edu/aell to register and to learn more about the symposium. Contact Jane Law at Elon University School of Law with any questions related to registration: firstname.lastname@example.org or (336) 279-9325.
ABOUT THE SYMPOSIUM:
When almost 300 legal educators, judges, lawyers and law students met in Boston 18 months ago for the first national symposium on experiential education in law, they recognized the changing landscape of legal education focusing on effective and integrated experiential education to accommodate limited finances and changes in the profession. These pioneers committed to developing thoughtful and innovative approaches to improve legal education and enhance the relevance of lawyers in the rapidly changing 21st century.
The 2014 symposium will present the findings of the working groups organized by the Alliance for Experiential Learning in Law with the help of legal educators, judges and lawyers from over 100 law schools and many other enterprises across the legal profession and provide examples of innovation from other professions that can inform how legal educators can adapt to changing paradigms. These working groups have focused on important issues that must define legal education now and for the future.
What do we mean by experiential learning?
What are the → Innovations → Barriers → Successes in producing integrated and effective curricula?
What ideas have the Alliance Working Groups developed since the Inaugural Symposium?
What perspective can other disciplines provide regarding our efforts?
This event is being organized by:
The Alliance for Experiential Learning in Law Steering Committee
Cindy Adcock, Charlotte School of Law
Margaret Barry, Vermont Law School
Luke Bierman, Northeastern University School of Law
Susan Brooks, Drexel University School of Law
Christine Cimini, Vermont Law School
Roberto Corrada, Sturm College of Law, University of Denver
Bob Dinerstein, Washington College of Law, American University
Steve Ellmann, New York Law School
Deborah Epstein, Georgetown Law
Bob Jones, The Law School, University of Notre Dame
Kate Kruse, Hamline University School of Law
Susan Reich Paulsen, University of Minnesota Law School
Ruthane Robbins, Rutgers University School of Law
Pat Coughlan Voorhies, Northeastern University School of Law
Second National Symposium on Experiential Learning in Law Planning Committee
Steve Friedland, Co-Chair, Elon University School of Law
Margaret Barry, Co-Chair, Vermont Law School
Bill Henderson, Co-Chair, Indiana University Maurer School of Law
Christy Benson, Elon School of Business
Olympia Duhart, Nova University School of Law
Jim Exum, Elon University School of Law; Former Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court
Bill McNichol, Reed Smith; Rutgers University School of Law
Madeline Obler-Grill, Elon Law Journal
Gene Pridgen, K&L Gates; Immediate Past President, North Carolina Bar Association
Vivian Wexler, Bingham McCutchen
Pat Coughlan Voorhies, Northeastern University School of Law
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Recently, my daughter had a part in Oxford High School’s production of “Sunset Boulevard.” She astutely noted that advances technology had changed or destroyed the careers of many people in the movie industry, including Gloria Swanson, who starred as Norma Desmond in the classic film. One of Norma’s classic lines in Sunset Boulevard is “I am big! It's the pictures that got small.” She also says “We didn't need dialogue. We had face.” Norma’s inability to accept changes in her industry and adapt to them would lead to her downfall.
Technology has changed the legal profession, and nothing can reverse that. In the long run it will lower overhead costs, and provide more efficient access to legal services. It will allow small firms to compete with big firms. Technology is transformative, which is scary, but it is not a bad thing. The law schools and lawyers that adapt to these changes will be just fine. Those who do not will be Norma Desmond.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Dean Daniel Rodriguez of Northwestern University School of Law posted the following essay on Word on the Streeterville, his Northwestern dean's blog. The title of the essay is "A Most Unfortunate Narrative."
Many law schools are working hard to keep up enrollments and student credentials; some are indeed struggling. As deans and university leaders work hard to make adjustments on the expenses side in order to deal constructively with these difficult issues, there has emerged an almost daily narrative about how the sky is falling (which is isn’t).
The most recent iteration of this is the news emerging from a handful of schools that faculty members are being offered retirement incentives. Although I am in no vantage point to assess the wisdom of any of these strategies for any of these law schools, it strikes me as a sensible reaction to enrollment circumstances that are, for the most part, currently out of control for some law schools. The business of retirement incentives is not, of course, a new phenomenon. With the end of mandatory retirement, university departments can manage human resource costs only by looking at creative tactics such as retirement incentives. Sometimes this will involve more senior (and typically highly compensated) members of the community; other times, given the long careers ahead of young faculty members, this will involve incentives nearer the front end. These incentives create a dynamic of negotiation not distinct from any other sort of employer-worker negotiation. They are tried-and-true carrots, not sticks.
That law schools are looking to manage their costs by taking close looks at their faculty labor force seems entirely sensible. It is hardly the harbinger of disaster; and, like the press releases that are attached to these proposals, these are important messages to the wider community of students and alumni that the law schools are looking at constructive ways of preserving strong academic programs and high quality in their student bodies.
These should be welcome developments. Folks like our friends at Above the Law, who are habitually cranky about law school decisionmaking and the motivations of academic leaders, should say: “Hurray. It’s about time law schools take a hard look at costs.” But, instead, the headline of the day is essentially “Law Schools are Crashing Around Us. Witness the Scramble to ‘Kick Out’ Faculty Members.” Think I am exaggerating? Here’s a link to a post by the sober Pepperdine Law professor and influential blogger, Paul Caron.
Take a breath, doomsayers. Have some perspective. This is evidence of adaptation, not desperation. And you are not helping the general situation, IMHO!
Monday, March 17, 2014
The University of Florida has announced that the search for the next dean of the Levin College of Law has failed. http://www.gainesville.com/article/20140314/ARTICLES/140319713?p=1&tc=pg
While I have always felt that the only truly failed search is one in which the wrong person is hired, the Florida search is unique because so much information has been shared publicly. What causes a dean search like Florida's to fail, and how will a second search achieve better results, next year?
The reports surrounding the search clearly inidcate that the law school faculty found two of the candidates highly acceptable to lead them in the years ahead. They also voted another candidate acceptable, but had reservations about him. This raises the question of what the President found objectionable about these candidates. Was it merely the fact that he asked for four names, and only got three? Was the President's favorite candidate not among the three names sent forward as acceptable? Did the President tolerate the long and work-intensive process only to the extent it produced him the candidate he planned to appoint all along?
The answers to these questions will greatly impact the next search at Florida. I would bet that Florida's next dean will come from its own faculty (as is often the case following a failed search).
Sunday, March 16, 2014
This essay is by Dean Frank H. Wu, who is Chancellor & Dean of University of California Hastings College of the Law. This essay was previoiusly published at Above The Law.
I was talking to a reporter the other day about changes within the legal profession. She had called me to ask what types of jobs were opening up. I disappointed her. She wanted specialties offering positions that were sexy, new, and numerous.
I explained there were indeed more jobs. But I did not know any of them that satisfied all of her criteria.
There were many possibilities for her article. None of them were everything she was looking for.
That would be true for the individuals obtaining those roles as well. I recall a former colleague who used to say in response to the extravagant expectations that young people express about their careers: “That’s why we call it ‘work.’” She meant that there isn’t any reason to believe it will be fun. It is more likely to be boring, stressful, or both boring and stressful by turns if not simultaneously.
By the journalist’s standards, unless it is sexy, new and numerous, it does not register at all. That isn’t the best understanding of the universe of possibilities. Law is not intrinsically sexy….
Some jobs that are not sexy are indeed new and numerous. Litigation support, performing e-discovery, or its transactional equivalent, analyzing terms and conditions of contracts, has been set up as its own track. Junior associates once took care of these tasks, eventually advancing to more meaningful functions. A category of lawyers now can be assigned to such labor on a more or less permanent basis, thanks to the combination of automation and outsourcing.
Other jobs are sexy and new but not numerous. A recent graduate of my law school conducted an intensive search and was hired to the government negotiating team addressing global climate change. That is about as exciting a position as possible for someone interested in environmental policy; it didn’t exist a generation ago. But it’s basically a one-off; there are few such opportunities.
Employers also need to recruit for jobs that are sexy and numerous though not new. There is increased demand for litigators who are interested in trusts and estates disputes: taking a side with families squabbling with one another about what the deceased has bequeathed descendants. If you want to gain trial experience, this is sexy — assuming you are able to argue accounting. The rivalry and resentment animating these cases is as ancient as humanity itself, meaning there is no end of intense interaction with opposing counsel and clients.
Yet the more significant story is that whole fields of law are developing. The insistence on sexy, new, and numerous frames the issues poorly.
Privacy, for example, is a concern of anyone with a credit card or who accesses the internet, which is to say everyone who is a consumer within the modern economy. We care about these issues. The rules are only starting to develop, subject to the most powerful political considerations and policy arguments.
Firms, both plaintiff’s side pursuing a contingency fee and the defense bar representing corporations, as well as government agencies, have set up privacy units. Yet privacy compliance is not necessarily legal practice in a traditional sense. It can be performed by professionals who work alongside lawyers. It is legal work though maybe not lawyer’s work.
I am not sure I have persuaded the press to orient coverage toward the realities beyond the headlines. The real issue is whether there is work to be done. Law is changing at a rate that the bench and the bar might not have anticipated, but it turns out to be the same in that regard as everything else in our accelerating reality.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
This essay is by Dean Frank H. Wu, who is Chancellor & Dean of University of California Hastings College of the Law. This blog entry appeared originally at Huffington Post.
Law schools must cut. Enrollment is down. The drop has no end in sight. It might be temporary; it might be permanent. Even if it is the former rather than the latter, there is much more to come: two-year JD programs, limited licenses, and various demands for reform.
Most law schools already have cut their enrollment. Unless the law school's dean has made a Faustian bargain, the cut to enrollment calls for a cut to the budget.
Many law schools are facing a structural deficit. It is important to explain what that means.
A deficit is a negative balance at the end of a given time period, typically a fiscal year (which may or may not correspond to a calendar year or to an academic year). The expenditures exceed the revenues.
An enterprise might run a one-time deficit because of an extraordinary expense. Say part of a building burns down in a particular year. It has to be rebuilt.
For an independent law school, such as UC Hastings, covering an extraordinary expense necessitates spending from the reserves that have been accumulated for just such a purpose. For the majority of law schools that are embedded within a larger university structure, it is possible the central administration will offer a temporary subsidy to make up for the loss.
A one-time deficit is not desirable, but it is not likely to be fatal. "One-time" is a crucial adjective. There is no reason to expect that another building will burn down the next year.
A structural deficit is something else altogether. It is inherent. Suppose the school has a payroll that is oversized relative to the money coming in. Human resources are what law schools buy; there is little raw material, as would be purchased by a manufacturing venture.
Unlike a building burning down, which one hopes occurs rarely, it is a certainty that employees will wish to be paid regularly. If the payroll cannot be met one year, and nothing is done to change the situation (either laying off some employees or reducing compensation for all employees or deploying some combination of measures), the deficit will repeat itself the following year. This will continue until the reserves are depleted or the outside source of funding is exhausted. The institution then is insolvent.
When any leader in higher education announces that there is a problem of this nature, there is a temptation to infer that the leader is the problem. If only the wrongdoeers were identified, all would be well. The administration must be incompetent, dishonest, or both.
Or sometimes observers assume that there is a hidden surplus in the system. They suppose that a thorough search will turn up excess that could take care of everything if it were eliminated. Yet one person's waste is another person's livelihood.
The extent of the crisis for legal education, however, cannot be denied. It is quite possible that in this application cycle, law schools--not any specific law school, but all accredited law schools taken together--will see a fifty percent reduction in the applicant pool since the recession set in. There have been thirteen consecutive LSAT sittings with fewer takers.
"Crisis" is the right term. Industries rarely see such negative change.
Law schools have been insulated from economic trends. They actually have been somewhat countercyclical, so an uptick in the economy might not help matters. (This description of the situation doesn't even take into account the tuition discounting that must be applied to attract the best students.)
With potential revenue at such a low point, expenditures must be brought into line. The alternative is bankruptcy.
People always hope to address the revenue side. There two common suggestions.
The first is to build out non-JD programs. LLM programs have multiplied. Over the past generation, LLM programs have enrolled primarily foreign students or the handful of Americans who took law degrees outside of the country. More recently, it also has included LLM programs for Americans looking to specialize or add prestige to their pedigree: what once was restricted to the specialty of tax has proliferated to various other fields. In an instant, it has begun to encompass non-professional degrees for individuals in cognate fields who could use legal skills to continue advancing in their current occupations.
The second is to raise more money from private sources. Even institutions that once depended on state subsidies for the bulk of their income have set up advancement operations. They chase their alumni for gifts and submit applications to foundations for grants.
These tactics are necessary and commendable. They can compensate for modest shortfalls, but they cannot cover up basic inadequacies with the business model.
Unless a law school wishes to transform itself out of the training of lawyers, its core will remain the JD program; it is wishful thinking to wager otherwise.
Non-JD students are not available in sufficient quantities, and they do not substitute on a one-to-one basis for JD students in monetary terms. They are at best a two-for-one proposition; speaking of them in that sense only exposes the troubling tendency to treat them as if they were a financial necessity and little more. If they are not similar in quality to the JD students, taking them in trades one set of worries for another.
Fundraising potential is routinely overestimated. An institution with thousands of alumni who have not been accustomed to giving will not become an institution with thousands of donors without a better pitch than its own imperilment. Contributions follow success. There are lawyers who appreciate what their teachers enabled them to do, but, contrary to what legal training might suggest, it is not generally possible to persuade someone they ought to feel generous.
Thus we come to this. Law schools must cut. I embrace radical transparency in making that declaration. What we see when we pull back the curtains is not necessarily pretty. The great and powerful Wizard of Oz asked us not to pay attention to the little man back there.
The challenge for us legal educators is to continue inspiring people to care about the law: students, benefactors, the bench and the bar, even the public at large. Inspiration will require innovation. It's time to step out from behind the curtains.
Thursday, March 6, 2014
The US News Law School Rankings will soon be released, and I am surprised there is not a betting pool on the outcome.
For many years, applicants have relied heavily on the rankings when they were choosing between law schools. These choices were often made with disregard to the individual student’s cost of attendance. That is, a student would attend the school ranked 75th, rather than a school ranked 125th, even though the tuition at the 75th ranked school might be significantly higher.
A positive change that seems to be occurring is that the many law schools and students realize that educational cost can have a bigger impact on long-term career choices than the rankings. Students with lower debt leaving law school have many more options in the job market. Conversely, a student with large debt must find a job with a large enough salary to pay that debt and have enough left over to live on.
There is little doubt that the top students at top law schools have a better chance of being hired by the top 250 law firms. The NLJ grid found at the link below, therefore, is not surprising:
Each of the schools listed on the NLJ chart would be considered an elite law school. It is important to note that even at Berkeley and Cornell 55% of the graduates are hired in jobs other than big law jobs, or are unemployed and still looking.
The question applicants need to ask if they are not going to an elite school is what is the cost versus benefit of my education? I assert that there is very little real difference between, for example, a law school ranked 75th and one ranked 125th.
I admit it is true that the 75th ranked school will have better median LSAT and GPA profiles than the 125th ranked school. Because of that fact, some would argue that the applicant will be in class with “better” students at the 75th ranked school. I disagree with that position, because I am not convinced that a student with a 157 LSAT is truly “better” than a student with a 154. Furthermore a student with a 157 LSAT at a school with a 157 median is less likely to earn a high dollar scholarship than a student with a 157 LSAT at a school with a 154 median. If the LSAT numbers have some value as predictors of first-year success, the student would arguably be better off at the lower ranked school, where she is predicted to be at the top of the class, rather than at the higher ranked school where she is predicted to be in the middle. That is especially true, if her cost of education is greatly reduced by being at the lower ranked school. The rankings give applicants the sense that they are making a rational decision by picking a school higher up on a list, even if that decision is economically irrational.
Wouldn’t it be nice if a magazine like Consumer Reports could create a reliable and useful ranking system for law schools. Until then, we will have to endure the impacts of March Madness in legal education.
Sunday, March 2, 2014
This essay is by Dean Frank H. Wu, who is Chancellor & Dean of University of California Hastings College of the Law. This blog entry appeared originally at Above The Law.
Legal education does not suffer from a problem. It suffers from multiple problems.
In law school, before students learn anything else, they must understand the importance of issue spotting. One cannot analyze a case or a line of cases, without being able to see the multiple potential issues that are raised and then recognizing which warrant consideration. In actual practice, this skill remains a pre-requisite for offering an opinion or fashioning an argument. It becomes a matter of course.
Legal education faces at least three problems. They are related but not the same. What might help with respect to one problem might hurt with respect to another problem….
First, there is a glut of lawyers on the market. There are simply too many people out there who hold JDs and wish to work as lawyers. The oversupply may be overstated, but the number of seats in law school should be — and is being — reduced.
This particular issue extends beyond law school; there are too many lawyers at virtually every level, including the most prestigious. Even if this surplus is temporary, its negative consequences may be so significant as to outweigh everything else. (There is the irony, for another day, of a lack of lawyers available to represent ordinary people.)
There are various possible remedies. Some lawyers will, as they always have, perform other types of work. That encompasses occupations that are as fulfilling, intellectually and materially, as the role of an attorney; it does not mean dispensing fancy coffee. Other lawyers might migrate overseas, where demand is relatively strong and likely to remain so.
Second, legal education costs too much. (I’ll discuss the hyperinflation of tuition further later.)
Third, the skills that are imparted through the traditional program of training are not suited to the demands of employers, and, ultimately, clients.
The Dean of Georgetown, William Treanor, gave a talk recently for the Lawyers Club of San Francisco. He observed that the possibility of a shortened curriculum, meant to address the second problem (high cost), would worsen the third problem (inadequate skills). There is another means of changing the cost-benefit calculation: instead of decreasing the former, increase the latter. (Incidentally, for economies as a whole, deflation presents worse risks than inflation.)
In the background, however, there is a problem bigger than all of the ones mentioned above. We are living through a period of profound economic restructuring in general. It isn’t merely the pervasive effects of globalization and the speed of technological advance; it’s the constancy of change and the volatility of society. Almost all of us are unsettled by uncertainty, even if we would like to be avant-garde. For those of us who have felt assured of the American Dream, it is about as demoralizing as it could be to realize that our reasonable expectations might not be matched by economic realities — never mind unreasonable expectations that are held dear.
The only hope, for institutions as well as individuals, is to adapt. That has always been true. It hasn’t always been acknowledged. We do not live in the best of all possible worlds; that is yet to come.
Sunday, February 23, 2014
This essay is by Dean Frank H. Wu, who is Chancellor & Dean of University of California Hastings College of the Law. This blog entry appeared originally at Huffington Post.
I am bullish on the legal profession.
I must offer a preface before I explain why law remains vital -- and how it will become paramount in an increasingly complex world. I have established my bona fides as a critic of the organized bar, the standards of practice, the performance of law schools, and the preferences of legal academics. I have advocated for reforms: explaining the facts; pointing out inexorable trends; setting reasonable expectations; addressing the high cost of training; and cutting enrollment in law schools.
All that said, I continue to come to work believing that my colleagues and I are engaged in a worthwhile endeavor.
Everything depends on the rule of law. That is true for a democracy. It is especially so for a diverse population.
The enforcement of contracts and the protection of civil rights depend on reliable legal systems. The expectation that contracts will be followed and rights will be respected is always implicit in the background, meaning that the rule of law operates even without formal recourse to the courts.
The technological advances that are enjoyed, and certainly the profits that flow from innovation, are enabled by a robust intellectual property regime. Entrepreneurs would invent and artists would create regardless, but the economic consequences of their ingenuity would be very different if there were insufficient protection for patents, trademarks, or copyrights.
The rule of law is possible only with lawyers who represent clients and causes, as well as a judiciary that is independent and not corrupt. These lawyers and the judges are produced by law schools. The progress of the law also is much influenced by scholars who cogitate on issues without being beholden to the interests of those who pay them.
Consider China. (Elsewhere, I've explained why I, as a Chinese American, am doomed if China is ascendant and America is relegated to second-class status: I've made my bets on this side of the Pacific.) Specifically, observe what happens when a Chinese citizen who is ambitious and intelligent makes some money. I don't mean they become superrich. I mean they attain a middle class status comparable to the average American.
The Chinese invest in the United States. They put their new-found wealth in American bonds, American stocks, and American real estate. They do so on a staggering scale that plays into the fears of Yellow Peril. More to the point, they transfer assets to the United States (including human capital in the form of children to be educated), notwithstanding the relative growth rates of the two nations. That is, they prefer the United States with its more modest returns.
I submit the reason is law. In American Treasury Bills, companies, land, or even plain bank deposits, the ordinary person can have confidence that, whatever partisan political changes take place and despite government shutdowns, there is an extraordinary high likelihood that nobody will steal one's possessions. An infrastructure has been built, imperfect though it may be, ensuring that. In China, there are not similar guarantees.
Yet law is experiencing a frightening reordering. Or perhaps not law itself; the law is stable or at least predictable. The means by which it is implemented are volatile.
Thus, the lawyer of the future must be different than the lawyer of the past. The professions adapt more slowly than other businesses. Few have been as resistant to change, however, than the members of the bar. The availability of information forces lawyers to demonstrate their social utility by means other than their exclusive technical knowledge, because their magic tricks have been disclosed.
The supply and the demand curve for lawyers with basic skills has become so skewed that their expertise can be purchased too easily. It is increasingly true for all types of education: The facts themselves are not what is valuable; the ability to apply them is. Even work that cannot be automated and that formerly seemed sophisticated can be reduced to a commodity. Look at the online coupons that are available for medical treatments.
The lawyers that are needed are those who do numbers and languages. They must be familiar with the industries they serve and aware of the basics of economics and finance. They are positioned to be problem solvers and leaders.
The best lawyers will always have a future.
Sunday, February 16, 2014
This essay is by Dean Frank H. Wu, who is Chancellor & Dean of University of California Hastings College of the Law. This blog entry appeared originally at Huffington Post.
As a law school dean, I spend quite a bit of time thinking about how to reinvent legal education. As I meet with our alumni, I realize that they spend an equal amount of time thinking about how to reinvent legal practice.
Lawyers -- and others in the professions -- recognize that they are only slightly better off than other workers in the modern economy. They cannot presume that their reliance on their brains, rather than their muscles, protects them against the vicissitudes of the marketplace.
Three trends have an adverse effect on law firms.
First and most importantly, corporate clients are smarter consumers than ever before. They have learned to commodify virtually all of the projects that they send to outside counsel. Whether they are deals or disputes, if they are not at the "bet the company" level, then it is possible to manage the risk presented by each matter in a reasonable manner.
The difference between the attorney who is good enough and the attorney who is the best is probably not sufficient in the overwhelming number of instances to justify the premium for the superlative choice. It may not even be possible to determine readily in advance who that happens to be other than by reputation.
Accordingly, clients have decided they won't pay for training of junior lawyers or excessive overhead. While they didn't want to do that before either, they have the advantage in bargaining now -- and it will persist thanks to excess supply and slack demand.
Their refusal to allow recent graduates to handle their files might be short-sighted, because eventually there won't be anyone with sufficient experience in the pipeline. Clients will not be deterred from shifting the cost of radical restructuring of the business model. Somebody else will be forced to pay for the requisite mentoring.
The acknowledgment that high-quality services can be delivered without a fancy address is made all the easier by the ability to retain people over videoconferencing, email, and telephone. An impressive lobby ensures only that additional rent will be added to the bill. Nowadays, professional relationships can flourish without significant personal interaction. For all the client cares, the lawyer is performing excellent work at home in a bathrobe.
Outside counsel complain that they are being second-guessed by auditors, or, worse, computer programs, on how they spend their time. In-house counsel reply that as rates have surpassed the thousand dollar per hour mark, they would be foolish to be any less attentive to what exactly happened in any given six minutes that were charged to them. Through alternative fee arrangements, clients can transfer risks to their lawyers. Only a few can still recall, wistfully, the old-fashioned billing statement which said "services rendered" next to a sizable sum.
Second, technology is proving as revolutionary for the bar as it is for everyone else. A generation ago, a new litigator at a major law firm likely would be assigned early on to do pre-trial "discovery" -- specifically, "document review." That meant looking through boxes of paper for certain keywords such as the names of the parties. A squadron of associates would be sent from their nice offices to a windowless lower floor, where they would sit at desks for days, billing for every moment of their consciousness. The least lucky among them might have been shipped out to a warehouse archive that looked like that government storage facility at the end of the first Indiana Jones movie except there was no Ark of the Covenant to be found inside a dusty container.
Now, millions of email messages can be scanned, converted to text using OCR software, uploaded to a secure location in the cloud, and then searched in literally seconds. A responsible lawyer will be drafted to oversee the process. The labor (and the cost) of a dozen lawyers for a dozen weeks has been reduced to a single lawyer in a day. Even a modest-sized firm can afford the innovation.
What technology giveth, it taketh away. As digital search has become possible, the mass to be searched has increased to keep pace -- someone must have come up with a witty formula to express the relationship between our ability to organize data and the increase in its quantity, but ironically I am ignorant of it. Technology also has made legal practice more complex and faster- paced. The lawyer of today must be better than the lawyer of yesterday as the athlete of today must be better than the athlete of yesterday.
Third, legal process outsourcing has been proven feasible. It is transformative. "Outsourcing" is not even the right term. Outsourcing, sending tasks that were carried out by an employee inside a firm to an independent contractor beyond its formal structure (whether overseas or domestic), is symbolic of much else.
Legal services can be unbundled and repackaged and then performed by people of varying skill levels with permanent specializations and different career trajectories in multiple physical locations. As a consequence, the firm itself can be configured creatively. There is no necessity to set up a system that presents a linear path with lockstep compensation from associate to partner (meaning an actual owner of equity in the operation). Instead, it is possible to plug people into slots as needed.
Competition once was limited by guild rules masquerading as ethical norms -- no advertising, etc. There are no constraints anymore.
Even lawyers who have a credible claim to being at the top of their field are pitching for business constantly. Lawyers compete with accountants, consultants, and financial advisors, not to mention do-it-yourself manuals and websites. For high-end legal advice, Anglo-American firms still have an advantage, but there is no reason to suppose that it will be more durable than it has proven with, say, the manufacturing of luxury automobiles.
For the individuals willing to adapt, however, there could be no better time to reform the law firm. Boutiques and virtual firms are only the beginning of profound changes to come. There almost certainly always will be the legacy firms who by virtue of their prestige, earned or otherwise, serve the few who remain willing to pay their fees while offering opportunities to those who wish to play their tournament. For the bulk of the work to be done, a new type of lawyer will evolve to do it.
It is up to us in the academy to prepare our students for the future no matter what it holds.
Friday, February 14, 2014