Enhanced Opportunity for Mission Distinctiveness and Creative Collaborations
Legal education is at an important crossroads, one that more resembles the complexity of LaGuardia than a traditional town square.
To begin, one question facing law schools is the level of demand for legal education. In recessionary times, the conventional wisdom is that graduate school applications rise as applicants wait out the employment market while furthering their education. While application volume rose somewhat in the most recent application cycle, it is possible that the conventional wisdom about the relationship between the economy and law school applications may not hold this time around.
Concerns about the job market for lawyers, the mounting costs of higher education and diminishing respect for the role of the lawyer in society are all factors that may keep law school applications flat. While reduced numbers of new law graduates may not sound troubling at first glance, especially to any current lawyer concerned about the economy, each of these factors deserves a closer analysis that reveals more complexity and also presents a special opportunity for needed progress.
With regard to the job market for lawyers, the legal profession has not been immune from the general economic strife facing the nation and world. In some substantive areas, private practice has faced severe contraction as demand for services has fallen with the economy; likewise, as government revenues have fallen, many areas of public service have also contracted as funding cuts have reduced lawyer ranks (or frozen hiring) despite mounting demand for their services. Lawyer layoffs and new associate deferrals in large firms have been particularly steep and strikingly visible.
The same economic and political conditions creating these current challenges have also exacerbated society’s need for lawyers. Put differently, it is not that there are too many lawyers; rather, it is that the supply of lawyers is not well matched with the demand for legal services. There may be a surplus of lawyers waiting in line for the next high-profile IPO, but there are also too few defending home foreclosures and evictions. Just as in the medical profession, there is plenty that “needs doing” out there; the issue is the need for a better calibration between the supply of lawyers and the need for legal services.
In most markets, price calibrates supply and demand. In the case of lawyers, it is no different, even though many argue that part of what it means to be a “profession” is that it should be. The issue, of course, is that many clients cannot afford to pay lawyers and most lawyers cannot afford to work solely for free. If the commodity were a luxury, we might be unconcerned that price forecloses access. But access to justice is not a luxury; not only is it more like the basics of food, shelter, clothing and medical care, it is often the very means of access to those basic human needs.
One factor often cited as an impediment to lawyers choosing public interest or public service work is the cost of legal education and the resultant debt burden of many graduates. While the cost of higher education certainly has risen in the United States, that is not the most serious impediment to a better calibration between the supply of lawyers and the public’s need for legal services — particularly after the recent implementation of federal debt relief legislation, including the College Cost Reduction Act.
The real culprit is the lack of jobs in the public service sector. Many law students are drawn to legal studies as part of their desire to work for the common good, both domestically and internationally. At the University of Washington, for example, which enjoys a distinguished tradition of public service to the state and beyond, a high percentage of its graduates seek public service positions.
While the current economic climate and its relationship to the costs of higher education are significant factors that legal education is presently facing, they pale in comparison to the importance of the role of law and lawyers in society. In other words, if all were well on the score of the overall status and image of the legal profession, then those economic pressures would likely be resolved in due course.
Unfortunately, however, all is not well. This challenge is a complex one and stems from many sources, including that the public’s overall respect for law and lawyers is not as high as it can or should be, despite the fact that most people are quite satisfied with “their” lawyer.
Taking all of this together, how should legal education respond to these complex dynamics facing it and the broader legal profession? Although this question requires significant reflection and discussion, three initial suggestions point the way toward an opportunity for enhancing collaboration within the legal academy and between it and the legal profession.
First, all of us in the legal profession must continue to work together to make the promise of equal justice for all real. Our justice system must be and be perceived as being accessible and fair to all citizens, not just those of significant means. Only this will assure ongoing respect for the rule of law and for the legal profession.
Fortunately, Washington is serving as an important model for the rest of the country in effective collaboration for equal justice. We enjoy — and our citizens benefit from — strong collaborations between and among the law schools, the bench, the bar, private industry, legal services, government and many community organizations. This work, as well as advocacy for greater support of legal services funding at the federal and state levels, must continue unabated, especially during this period of economic instability.
Second, law schools must work more intentionally to hone distinctive missions and then to build their educational programs in line with those missions. It is inefficient and ineffective to try to be all things to all people. Here, too, broad diversity is part of a commitment to overall excellence.
For instance, some law schools will be better situated to focus upon global health law, others on corporate law; some will be more capable at cutting-edge interdisciplinary scholarship; others better suited to a strong focus on skills training; some schools will have a more national or even international focus, others will be more state or regionally based. Schools will need support for this more mission-driven approach to legal education. The schools’ constituents may need to adjust expectations so that uniformity from each school is not expected; further, the American Bar Association, which accredits law schools, may need to reformulate some accrediting standards that reach well beyond issues of academic quality and inadvertently force law schools to all “look alike” rather than to cultivate distinct missions.
Third, law schools will need to increase collaboration with one another and also with the legal profession. For instance, law schools could collaborate more with each other and with the bar in establishing clinics, course offerings and skills training opportunities. Sure, there will be logistical impediments, but that is always true of collaborative efforts.
As is generally the case, the long-term benefits of collaboration are likely to be far greater than its costs. Moreover, one of the additional benefits of enhanced collaboration is that it will tangibly demonstrate the shared commitment to the improvement of our system of justice that should and must be the hallmark of each and every one of us who has the privilege of being a part of the legal profession.
Go Back