You are currently browsing archives for April 2014.

Unhappy Lawyers and Unmet Legal Needs

April 27th, 2014 / By

Lawrence Krieger and Kennon Sheldon recently posted an important paper about the factors associated with lawyer happiness. The paper includes a number of intriguing findings–I recommend it to all members of the legal profession. I focus here on a worrisome finding that Krieger and Sheldon discuss only briefly: The majority of lawyers, those who provide legal services to middle-income individuals, are the unhappiest.

These general practitioners, family lawyers, and others of their ilk are less satisfied than both those who work in prestige positions (serving primarily corporations) and those who work for the public interest (including government). Yet these “lawyers in the middle” make up the bulk of our profession–and are essential to address unmet legal needs. What are we going to about this?

Four Groups of Lawyers

To gather data for their study, Krieger and Sheldon surveyed bar members in four geographically diverse states. They divided the respondents into four groups:

Prestige lawyers are those who (a) work in law firms of 100 lawyers or more, or (b) practice tort/malpractice law; corporate, commercial, or transactional law; international business/commercial transactions; securities or partnership law; and tax, estate planning, or patent/copyright law. Krieger and Sheldon identified 1434 prestige lawyers in their sample.

Service lawyers work as public defenders, criminal prosecutors, other government lawyers, legal aid lawyers, or in-house counsel for a nonprofit organization. 1091 sample members fell in this category.

Judges include both judges and hearing officers. This group accounted for 141 sample members.

Other lawyers work in “general practice, family law, private criminal defense, and many [other areas] not typically associated with either very high earnings or primary public service.” This group constituted the largest slice of the sample, with 2852 members.

[Note that Krieger and Sheldon excluded “teachers, bar administrators, mediators/arbitrators, and clerks or support staff for judges or lawyers” from these groupings, so they could focus exclusively on more traditional practitioners. The “other” lawyers group, therefore, does not include attorneys in these positions.]

Who’s the Happiest?

Judges reported higher well-being than any other group studied by Krieger and Sheldon. Service lawyers were the next happiest, despite their low incomes. Prestige lawyers ranked third, and “other lawyers” brought up the rear.

Krieger and Sheldon focus on the difference between prestige and service lawyers: although the former earn more, the latter report greater well-being. To my mind, though, the more important result involves the “other” lawyers–those in general practice. These lawyers constitute the single greatest group of practicing lawyers; they also serve the needs for which Americans have the greatest unmet demand. Yet these are the unhappiest lawyers. This is a critical problem, one that legal education has ignored for too long.

The Invisible Majority

As I read Krieger and Sheldon’s very thoughtful study, I realized how much of our law school culture revolves around the prestige/service dichotomy. Both before and during law school, law students imagine that they will choose between high-paying prestige positions and modest-paying (but personally satisfying) service ones.

Our law school culture tacitly supports this dichotomy. Students quickly learn about the prestige positions and yearn for both their status and compensation. Prestige employers are well represented on campus, in the media, and in student gossip.

Schools counter the dominance of “prestige law” with talk of service careers. We sponsor public interest fellowships, job fairs, and other service programs. Faculty and career counselors encourage students to weigh the personal satisfactions of a service career against the monetary rewards of a “prestige” one.

At most law schools, however, a majority of graduates will work in neither of these fields: the dichotomy is a false one for them. Instead, they will become “other” lawyers serving the needs of small businesses and moderate-income individuals. The fact that service lawyers are happier, while prestige lawyers are wealthier, is irrelevant to them. They, according to Krieger and Sheldon’s study, will experience neither the high incomes of prestige lawyers nor the well-being of service ones.

Out of the Shadows

Is the plight of general-practice lawyers inevitable? I don’t know. Some of them manage very stressful work for clients of modest means. Family law tops that list; many lawyers shudder at the prospect of handling divorce or child custody cases, although courthouses teem with people seeking lawyers to represent them in those matters.

It may not be possible to give these “other” lawyers the high salaries of prestige lawyers or the civic satisfaction of service ones. But we might improve their well-being by recognizing the importance of their work. Rather than relegating them to the shadows of “other” lawyers, as law schools currently do, let’s celebrate the work of these every day lawyers.

Many of our graduates will handle divorce and child custody cases. They will represent criminal defendants for pay. They will handle small personal injury and commercial disputes. None of this is glamorous; much of it is stressful and modestly paid. But this is what lawyers do. This is what brings justice to most Americans.

Let’s embrace this legal work in our law school curricula. Let’s feature it in our placement programs. Let’s help our “other” graduates find satisfaction in their practices. I know some general practitioners who find substantial psychic rewards in their work. Although we don’t recognize them as “public service” lawyers, they are the professionals who help people through the traumatic days of a divorce, criminal charge, custody dispute, or probate contest.

We can do more to prepare these lawyers, celebrate their work, support their well-being, and offer their services to more of the clients who need them.

, 3 Comments

A Tale of Three Houses

April 24th, 2014 / By

My husband and I recently signed a contract to purchase a new house. As we arrange inspections (fingers crossed) and interview movers, I’ve been reflecting on the changing role of lawyers in residential real estate purchases. During my three decades as a homeowner, that role has steadily diminished. Here’s my tale of three transactions over three decades.

House One: The Customized Contract

We bought our first home in 1984, using a custom-crafted contract. Our contract, in fact, was about as customized as they come. As recent law graduates, with parent lawyers urging us on, my husband and I delighted in drafting our dream contract.

We loved our contract, but the sellers’ lawyer was dismayed. He had quoted the sellers a flat fee, assuming he could use his own preferred contract. Our diligence (or hubris) required him to devote extra hours to merging our work product with his. He probably lost money on the representation; I doubt that the sellers were interested in such a custom-tailored contract. Still, this was an era in which many lawyers proudly drafted their own contracts, then negotiated with opposing counsel about which language to use.

House Two: The Standardized Contract

By 1995, when we bought our second home, my husband and I had lost our appetite for contract drafting. Other buyers felt the same; standard contracts were common. We hired a lawyer to represent us, but paid a very modest fee for the representation. With a standard contract, there was relatively little for the lawyer to do. She reviewed the property survey and attended the closing on our behalf, but we didn’t need any customized legal advice.

House Three: No Lawyer Needed?

When we bid on a house last week, our realtor gave us a form contract developed by the local bar association. My husband and I were impressed with the document: it covers all essential points and strikes a fair balance between buyer and seller. Having a form contract allowed us to focus on key points of the offer, rather than worrying about drafting language.

After striking a deal with this well-worded contract, my husband and I wondered whether we needed to hire a lawyer at all. The realtors, title company, and bank all seem to have everything in hand. We asked a trusted friend–another lawyer–whether she thought we needed a lawyer to protect our interests. She responded that, especially if a bank participates in the transaction, she didn’t think either buyer or seller needs a personal lawyer these days. Her own daughter (a scientist, rather than lawyer) recently purchased a house without retaining a lawyer.

Lessons for Lawyers

Our experience as home buyers traces the path described by Richard Susskind in his widely read book, The End of Lawyers?. Thirty years ago, we (acting as our own lawyers) produced a customized contract to purchase a home. By 1995, the legal services supporting a home purchase were standardized: we paid a lawyer a set fee to perform prescribed tasks in connection with a standard contract.

Today, the same service has become a commodity: excellent form contracts are available without even consulting a lawyer. Other workers–realtors, bankers, and title agents–implement the process without ongoing guidance from a lawyer. It seems that in a growing number of transactions, neither buyer nor seller will hire a lawyer. Lawyers will continue to represent banks, advise title companies, and refine the standard contract, but those tasks will employ far fewer lawyers than old-fashioned real estate sales did. It’s not the end of lawyers, but it’s certainly a contraction of the market.

Law as a Reasonably Priced Luxury Good?

My story has a final twist: Although we probably don’t need a lawyer to represent us in this home purchase, my husband and I decided to hire one. More than thirty years out of law school, we know just enough to be dangerous. Neither of us specialize in real estate transactions or any related area. Rather than torment ourselves by reviewing all of the documents (which we know we’ll do), we decided to hire a real estate lawyer to do that work for us.

We’re delighted with that decision. Our lawyer is bright, hardworking, and knowledgeable. He responds quickly to email or phone requests. So far he has recommended a reputable home inspector, reviewed the title documents, caught several errors in those documents (including an arithmetic one), found a record related to our title, and answered all of our rather naive questions. We’re relieved to rely upon him rather than realtors and google searches.

I’m acutely aware, however, that we’re purchasing these legal services as a type of luxury good. The cost is reasonable–less than $1,000–but that’s more than many buyers would pay for this type of comfort. Even buyers who could afford the tab might purchase a different discretionary good. We like legal services, but I suspect many buyers would prefer a new widescreen tv, season tickets for their favorite sports team, or other indulgences.

The bottom line for residential real estate lawyers is sobering. Many buyers and sellers no longer need these services; they will rely upon form contracts and other professionals. Clients like us may still purchase services, but that market is small. To attract those niche clients, prices will have to be reasonable and service will have to be very client-focused. Otherwise, potential clients will spend their money on different discretionary goods.

, 3 Comments

Transparency Review in Advance of New Law School Jobs Data

April 4th, 2014 / By

Since 1974, the National Association for Law Placement has surveyed ABA-approved law school graduates with the help of roughly 200 schools and a nod from the ABA. NALP’s annual survey asks graduates to describe their jobs, their employers, how and when they obtained the positions, and their starting salaries. (More details here and here.)

NALP checks the data for discrepancies and produces statistical reports of post-graduation employment outcomes for each law school. NALP must keep these “NALP reports” confidential, but individual schools may publish their reports.

NALP Reports

Before the law school transparency movement, law schools did not publish NALP reports online for prospective students and others to see. Instead, these detailed, immensely useful reports occupied dusty filing cabinets. I recall when my organization first requested these reports from law schools, several career services deans told me they did not know where they were.

Though publishing a NALP report carries zero cost, skeptics doubted we’d succeed: “However worthy the effort, I doubt that this group will have much success ….” We obtained just 34 NALP reports from the initial request, but that number grew to 54 reports just a few months later after a handful of LST initiatives.

For the class of 2011, 68 schools published a NALP report until our annual Transparency Index, which grew the number of participating schools to 85. Prospective students and interested readers were even more fortunate for the class of 2012. To date, 108 schools—that’s 55% of possible schools—made their NALP reports public.

If you’re interested in viewing the data we gathered from these NALP reports, please head over to the LST Score Reports. We indicate on school profiles whether a school has decided to withhold information from the public. You can also view a list of the schools publishing NALP reports for the classes of 2010, 2011, and 2012 in our NALP Report Database. Note that we now have access to 60 2010 reports, 94 2011 reports, and 108 2012 reports.

Actual Law School Transparency

Law schools deserve a lot of credit for increasingly living up to proclamations in favor of transparency. So too do prospective students, current students, and alumni for demanding information. We accomplished actual transparency without formal legal requests, though we also believe it’s time that the non-participating schools subject to open record laws be ushered into the era of transparency.

Law school opacity harms not only the reputation of the schools who do not participate, but of the legal education system at large. Law schools are tasked with training the legal professionals of the future. They hold students to honor codes, require them to attend a class on professional responsibility and ethics, and send them into a profession where they must uphold the values of that profession on a daily basis. However, when it comes to their own conduct, too many schools take a position that the minimal level of integrity required to maintain ABA accreditation is good enough. Our hope is that schools who value their academic and social leadership roles will go beyond the bare minimum—and do so without sticks and carrots from LST.

Class of 2013 Employment Data and NALP Reports

Next week, the ABA will publish much of the class of 2013 employment data it collected from law schools in accordance with recently-refined accreditation requirements. Many law schools are already publishing information above and beyond the ABA requirements, and we hope these schools continue this positive practice later this summer when they receive their class of 2013 reports from NALP.

If your school does not yet publish what it has at its fingertips, ask why and explain how inaction is unprincipled, prevents informed decision-making by applicants, and harms the school and profession’s reputation. Our profession needs affordable, transparent, and fair entry. It starts with something as simple as law schools doing the obvious.

, 1 Comment

About Law School Cafe

Cafe Manager & Co-Moderator
Deborah J. Merritt

Cafe Designer & Co-Moderator
Kyle McEntee

ABA Journal Blawg 100 HonoreeLaw School Cafe is a resource for anyone interested in changes in legal education and the legal profession.

Around the Cafe

Subscribe

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives

Participate

Have something you think our audience would like to hear about? Interested in writing one or more guest posts? Send an email to the cafe manager at merritt52@gmail.com. We are interested in publishing posts from practitioners, students, faculty, and industry professionals.

Past and Present Guests