Law firms are struggling with the new normal of a segmented industry. The new economics of the profession are marked by increased lateral mobility among partners, increasing numbers of nonequity partners, increased client scrutiny of fees and a decrease in the routine legal work that used to support the pyramid model. As a result, it is harder for law firms to devote nonbillable time to training entry-level associates. Law graduates are expected to arrive knowing more than just how to “think like a lawyer.” The tricky part for law schools is trying to figure out what, exactly, they need to know.
Having a rather typical academic background, a couple of clerkships and a brief stint in Biglaw, it's not entirely clear how Fleischer came to have his finger on the pulse of the legal market, but his vision of law firms appears limited to the handful of big ones. This matters when considering where he goes.
In my view, law schools should play matchmaker, guiding students toward specialties that are likely to endure. Big firm attorneys in some practice areas will continue to have a comparative advantage over low-cost attorneys, in-house lawyers and other professionals.
But since most lawyers aren't worthy, they will fall by the wayside.
Few law students go into academia or become public defenders. But the more common narrative is for law students to arrive at law school with a vague notion of doing international or environmental law, then meander aimlessly around the curriculum. Eventually, realizing that gainful employment is probably a good idea, they find themselves in a job interview wondering what in the world a bond covenant is. At that point, offering an elective course in accounting and finance is too little, too late.
While Fleischer, despite his implicit elitist stance, advocates for more practical training for lawyers, though why learning accounting and finance in the last year is too little, too late, is never explained. Perhaps we shouldn't question the professor. But he shifts effortlessly into the LL.M. model, and wonders:
Could the same approach work in other areas of law that demand specialized legal expertise, like securities law, banking law or patent law? The critical question is whether there is sufficient market demand to supply an adequate number of jobs with six-figure salaries.
Again, it's unclear whether he's advocating for specialization within the existing law school structure, or asking law students to double down with an LL.M. if they can't find work as a generalist. And finally, his implicit elitism becomes flagrant.
None of this solves the broader problem at nonelite schools: the supply of law graduates simply exceeds market demand. The median salary of law school graduates at many schools is about $50,000, while average debt load is now over $100,000. As specialization takes hold, the next logical step is to lobby the American Bar Association to make the J.D. a two-year degree, with an optional third year of specialization for schools where that makes sense.
Sadly, his conclusion isn't without some merit. The vast majority of law students graduating will never see Biglaw salaries. If it makes you feel any better, even those who nailed Biglaw jobs over the past seven years will never be made equity partners, and even those who do may find their firms collapsing under their own weight, leaving them fighting clawbacks. A bit of schadenfreude, but it won't pay your bills.
Clients want to know that their lawyers are capable of handling their work. Lawyers may say they are even if they can't find their way to the courthouse without a map, but to admit otherwise is to starve. Recognized specialization may work to help, both by preparing lawyers to practice and providing a means for clients to distinguish between the lawyer who has familiarity, if not experience, with a particular practice area and those who are blowing smoke.
But Fleischer omits a critical component of the transition from generalist to specialist, particularly if the point is to make law students practice-ready and client-safe. Scholars can't do it. With rare exceptions, scholars are no more capable of finding the courthouse than the M&A associate. Scholars can't teach how arraignments happen, or the risks of being reasonably unready in a personal injury trial assignment part. These are the realities that crush a lawyer's soul, and a client's dreams.
The legal academy is offering their remedy for the ailment they created by insularity and hubris, And yet they do so without acknowledging that teaching the nuts and bolts of lawyering requires someone who knows the nuts and bolts of lawyering. How many lawprofs can teach law students the finance of running a solo shop, given that they've never been near a solo shop lest it soil their suit?
I don't fault Fleischer for not recognizing that he's proffered only part of his own answer. He wouldn't realize it, because his experience is so limited and his vision of the rest of the profession so distant. But this is why the future of law can't be left to academics to decide on their own, and why practicing lawyers, the ones in the trenches where these law students will likely end up when they get no Biglaw callbacks and graduation date is looming, need to become involved.
I'll sit by the phone, just in case some nonelite law school calls to ask if I can teach a third year specialized course in the practice of law. I don't expect it to ring.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2012/10/28/the-myth-of-the-age-of-specialization.aspx?ref=rss
lawyer fees lawyer firm lawyer malpractice attorneys lawyer office lawyers
No comments:
Post a Comment