by Kristen Pavón

Last week, the Association of American Law Schools held its annual meeting and “skyrocketing cost of tuition, ever-higher graduate debts and a growing feeling that legal scholarship is of little use to the bench or practitioner” quickly became the hottest topic of discussion.

Cabranes, like others before him, noted that law schools are in “something of a crisis,” given the skyrocketing cost of tuition, ever-higher graduate debts and a growing feeling that legal scholarship is of little use to the bench or practitioners. These themes emerged as the hottest topic of discussion during the four-day conference, which drew about 3,000 legal educators.

“For years, [the rising cost of tuition and growing debt loads] have raised eyebrows. Now, they raise blood pressure,” Cabranes said on Jan. 6. “These developments literally threaten the enterprise of legal education.”

U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Jose Cabranes offered a three-part approach for alleviating these issues plaguing law schools.

To get back on track, law schools should shift their curricula back to core courses and away from the interdisciplinary classes that have grown in popularity, he said; they should introduce a two-year core law program followed by a yearlong apprenticeship, and increase transparency regarding costs, job prospects and financial aid information.

As a recent law graduate and the bearer of two law school loans, I have to say that I agree with Judge Cabranes’ suggestions. More emphasis needs to be on honing real lawyering skills so that law students have a real chance at landing jobs (and at being effective advocates) and having a third-year, full-time apprenticeship program does just that.

Judge Cabranes also talked about a growing “cult of globalization” … You can read more about that the National Law Journal.

What do you think about this?

By: Steve Grumm

These are oldies but goodies.  At this time last year we posted cover letter and resume-drafting tips for summer, public interest job applications.  So while we’re gearing up for our free, two-part summer job search webinars series that will take place on 1/25 and 2/1 (click for registration and details), we wanted to re-circulate last year’s posts, which retain all of their currency today:

• Public interest cover letters: tips and best practices for summer job applications;
• Public interest resumes: tips and best practices for summer job applications.

Good luck, and try to join us for both webinars to get your 2012 summer job hunt on.

By: Steve Grumm

Happy Friday, dear readers.  It’s been a relatively slow week as many of us have eased our ways back into the office.  Political junkies likely braved the fiasco that is cable news as it aired BREAKING, UNIVERSE-ALTERING DEVELOPMENTS (not involving grain elevators) from places like Coon Rapids, Iowa.  Today the Washington Post has run a funny picture of candidate John Huntsman reacting to a goat bite in New Hampshire.  This man is a former two-term governor and Mandarin-fluent ambassador to China.  Now he dodges Isak the Goat.  And that’s exactly how democracy should work.

Where was I? Oh, before we get to the news, one quick plug for a NALP/Equal Justice Works webinar series aimed at law students on the summer public interest job hunt.  Our two webinars will focus on cover letter and resume writing (part one) as well as interviewing and networking (part two).  Get the dates/details here.

At last, this week in public interest news:       

• criminal and civil justice gaps in the Volunteer State;
• possible monkey business in a Utah criminal case reads like a Law & Order script;
• is it more than the economy driving more law students into public interest careers?;
• the National Law Journal’s Pro Bono Hotlist profiles some headline-generating work;
• public interest items from January’s ABA Journal include a feature story on controversy involving an Illinois-based innocence project;
• animal law practice blowing up in Portland, OR (and why I loathe cats);
• the fiscal woes confronting Virginia-based legal services programs;
• the fiscal woes confronting West Virginia’s legal services program.

Here are the summaries:

• 1.5.12 – the widening civil and criminal justice gaps, as seen from the vantage point of Shelby County (Memphis, TN) Public Defender Stephen C. Bush, who writes in the Memphis Flyer: “In this moment, we cannot compromise on justice; living in poverty is hard enough. Our community has more than its share of hurting families, unemployment, substance abuse, hunger, sickness, mental illness, homelessness … the list goes on. These problems create more have-nots, more gaps. We cannot afford that. We must bear these costs together.”  Trivia: Shelby County has the 4th oldest defender program in the country.

• 1.4.12 – how’s this for a Law & Order twist: a prosecutor in the Utah County Attorney’s office faxed to county commissioners and the local defender’s office a letter which “called the public defenders’ [sic] office a ‘huge embarrassment’ and a ‘waste of money’.”  The letter referred to three defenders who worked on a homicide case – the defendant was convicted – as “a huge joke” and opined that “monkeys would do a much better job.”  The Salt Lake Tribune reports that the letter, which also referred to a defender sleeping at trial and throwing “temper tantrums,” was “signed by a ‘taxpayer in Utah County’.”  The prosecutor claims that an unknown third party handed her the letter, which she did not write but did fax…from a FedEx office.  Is there monkey business afoot?  Who knows?  But here’s the crazy part: in appealing the homicide conviction, a new defense legal team is asserting ineffective assistance and using the letter in making its case!  Apparently Utah’s standard for effective assistance is something above just monkeying around. 

• 1.3.12 – a short piece entitled “New Lawyers Have Rising Interest in Public Interest,” published on the higher-ed-focused Braintrack website, suggests that: “While the vast majority of new law school graduates find jobs with private law firms, many law schools have seen a significant uptick in the percentage of students pursuing careers in public interest….  Undoubtedly, the economy has played a role in these numbers: Since fewer opportunities are available at private firms, presumably students are more open to pursuing careers in public interest. But experts say that’s not the whole story.”  The piece goes on to suggest that students are increasingly public service minded and looking for meaningful careers in service.  Interesting.  Certainly the relative dearth of law firm jobs isn’t the only factor that’s driven more law students to consider careers in nonprofit and government arenas. But the weight of the anecdotal evidence that’s come my way suggests the altered job market is by far the biggest driver.  While I think it’s terrific that more students are considering public service careers, and while I have high hopes for the Millenials, I just haven’t seen evidence of non-economic factors having an oversized impact on student career choices.  But I was wrong about the Eagles making the playoffs and maybe I’m wrong about this.  

• 1.2.12 – Biglaw pro bono.  The NLJ’s Pro Bono Hotlist profiles the work of a handful of large law firms.  Their causes range from Holocaust victim reparations to education and election reform.  Without question, these pro bono efforts are laudable and I’m heartened to see Biglaw resources channeled to these ends.  But I’m disappointed that more pro bono poverty law work – those unsexy, non-headline-generating eviction, domestic violence, and veterans’ benefits cases – doesn’t figure prominently into the HotList mix.  Even the firms selected by NLJ are doing great poverty law work.  I’d love to see the HotList zoom in on the unheralded work of lawyers helping poor clients with nowhere else to go.

• January, 2012 – this month’s ABA Journal includes some noteworthy public-interest items:
  • one feature piece, entitled “Journalism & Justice: Did Innocence Project Student Reporters Get Too Close to Lawyers?” looks at a controversy that enveloped Northwestern’s Medill Innocence Project and which has raised questions about the role of student journalists in investigating convicts’ claims of innocence.
  • some coverage of the ABA’s work w/ the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) to address the justice gap.
  • an interesting new corporate structure for socially conscious entrepreneuers is being accepted in a growing number of states.  The new “…corporate form – seven states in the last two years have amended their constitutions to allow for it – allows corporate officers to consider a social, community or environmental purpose as part of their mission.  It also helps shield benefit corporations from shareholder lawsuits for doing what they think is the right thing.”  

     

• 12.30.11 – the Portland Business Journal looks at the growth of “animal law” practice.  The article is password-protected and I don’t have access to it, so I include this just as an FYI to the animal enthusiast types in our readership.  (I am an animal enthusiast, having in my youth owned a retriever named Reggie and a rabbit named Crusader.  Turns out it’s tough to raise a rabbit in a Philadelphia neighborhood.  Cats paid all kinds of attention to Crusader and did not have his best interests at heart.  I have loathed cats ever since. Vile creatures.)  

• 12.31.11 – Virginia legal services programs are facing extraordinary fiscal challenges.  They expect layoffs and service cuts, particularly with last November’s LSC appropriation slash.  The legal services community is looking to the state legislature for help, in the form of establishing mandatory IOLTA program and increasing some court filing fees.  From the Virginian-Pilot: 
  • The program that sends interest on money held in trust to legal aid in Virginia is voluntary. It is mandatory in all states except Virginia, Alaska, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska and Idaho. With backing of Virginia’s bankers, the General Assembly passed a law in the 1990s stopping the program from becoming mandatory.  Delegate Manoli Loupassi, a Richmond Republican, has introduced a bill to repeal that law and thus allow the Virginia Supreme Court to consider requiring all lawyers to participate in the program. Similar bills died in the General Assembly a year ago.
  • Legal aid will ask lawmakers to approve a budget amendment that would increase the civil filing fee that goes to legal aid from $9 to $13.

•  12.30.11 – a call to the West Virginia bar: pick up pro bono efforts because legal aid is underfunded.  An editorial in The Intelligencer and Wheeling News-Register (a newspaper so badass it needs two names) highlights how the LSC cuts will impact Legal Aid of West Virginia and continues, “If Legal Aid is forced into layoffs, it will be up to local attorneys to swallow the loss of pay and offer their services pro bono. Here in our area, lawyers have a praiseworthy record of stepping up to the plate. In the past, they have been recognized for their high rate of pro bono work. The need for help will not disappear, even when the money does. 

By: Steve Grumm

Dean Rodriguez crystal balls 2012, predicting (and seemingly, at points, advocating for) developments in the conversations about how we educate lawyers and increasing transparency in placement stats, etc.  Among Rodriguez’s prognostications…

From enrage to engage:  We will see professional educators and lawyers working more thoughtfully to respond to the drumbeat of criticism about the structure of American legal education and its challenges.

…

Law schools as public service incubators:  The demands of the public, and especially the poor, for legal services is ever growing.  Law schools, public and private, big and small, national and regional, must and will develop mechanisms to serve the disadvantaged and to provide access to both basic and complex legal work.

The dean’s post prompted an interesting comment about how experiential learning may (and may not) be further integrated into the curriculum:

Much of the current disenchantment stems from the enormous economic downturn and attendant layoffs and failure-to-hires of recent law school graduates. This produces a demand for both better information about placement (and, perhaps, bar passage), as well as heartfelt but unfocused requests for training that will enable graduates to function as lawyers. If and when the economy improves, these feelings will not disappear, but will become less intense. To the extent that we take the latter request seriously, it will not lead, by and large, to doing a lot more public interest work. Although that work may produce some generalized skills training (e.g. how to draft a complaint), there is precious little paid work in public interest. Rather, taking the demand for skill seriously leads down a path to law schools having a law firm (just as medical schools have hospitals) where students start to learn how to practice under lawyer-professors, who both provide training and who charge clients for their services. We would need to work hard to make the position of lawyer-professor prestigious, so that we could attract the best and the brightest. Law school might become 4 years instead of 3. And there will be negotiations between the lawyer-professors and the Deans of law schools about how to split fees. Deans of law schools will need new sets of skills, akin to managing partner at a large law firm.

(Tip of cap to Prof. Brian Leiter’s blog.)

By: Steve Grumm

From every law school dean’s favorite periodical, the US News and World Report, comes a list of trends that are predicted to rear their heads in 2012.  Of note, accelerated JD programs (and combined-degree programs, e.g. JD/MSW & JD/MBA) are ones to watch for…

By: Steve Grumm

That’s also good advice for living life outside of law school.  The Natioanl Law Journal reports on a recent study about how law students’ dispositions can affect their performance and overall levels of satisfaction:

Which new law students will perform the best academically during their first semester and be the most satisfied with their lives? Those who are realistically hopeful, according to research into the way hope and optimism affect law student performance.

A study published in the December edition of the Journal of Research in Personality, and featured last year in the Duquesne Law Review, concluded that students who came to campus with high levels of hope got better grades and were more satisfied with their lives after completing their first semester, which tends to be the most stressful.  

This distinction between optimism and hope is quite helpful, in my opinion:

The researchers distinguished hope from optimism, high levels of which boosted life satisfaction but not first semester grades.

“Optimism is the expectation that the future will be good, regardless of how this happens,” said Kevin Rand, an assistant professor of psychology at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. “Hope is the expectation about things you have actual control over.”

Free existential guidance from the PSLawNet Blog!  You’re welcome, people.

By: Steve Grumm

This ABA Journal piece is a must-read if you’re interested in how legal education is financed (i.e. the widespread availability of loans), the intersection of the lending system with a bleak job market, and what may happen from here.  The news ain’t all good.  Authors William Henderson and Rachel Zahorsky begin with some sobering present-day statistics…

In 2010, 85 percent of law graduates from ABA-accredited schools boasted an average debt load of $98,500, according to data collected from law schools by U.S. News & World Report. At 29 schools, that amount exceeded $120,000. In contrast, only 68 percent of those grads reported employment in positions that require a JD nine months after commencement. Less than 51 percent found employment in private law firms.

The influx of so many law school graduates—44,258 in 2010 alone, according to the ABA—into a declining job market creates serious repercussions that will reverberate for decades to come.

…

The piece then goes on to trace the historical role of federal lending (both in backing private loans and direct lending) in funneling cash into the legal education system.  Henderson/Zahorsky identify a serious, looming problem for federal lending.  Now that Uncle Sam is doing so much direct lending he is betting that, as a lender, he’ll make money back on future interest revenues paid by law-student/attorney borrowers.  But is this realistic in light of a stagnant (and maybe in the long term, shrinking) job market?

By failing to make rigorous, realistic actuarial assumptions in deciding who to lend money to and how much to lend, the federal government avoids politically uncomfortable trade-offs. Everyone can go to college. And if you can get accepted into law school, the government will finance that, too.

But as the economist Herbert Stein once said, “If something cannot go on forever, it won’t.” The federal government’s gamble that higher education will continue to result in higher personal incomes eerily echoes Wall Street’s risky assumption that historical patterns in real estate values would carry forward forever and enable many sliced-and-diced mortgage-backed securities to attain AAA ratings.

While it may be politic, even patriotic, to assume that the higher-education-equals-higher-income equation is fact, for investors it remains, at best, aspirational. Since 2008, private investment in nearly any market has been reluctant. The capitalists aren’t taking this education-equals-high income bet; if they did, the terms they would demand would likely change the choices that student borrowers are now making.

Unless the government’s actuarial assumptions on student loan repayments turn out to be correct, federal funding of higher education is on a collision course with the federal deficit.

Optimistic assumptions of future growth and earning power, however, are completely at odds with the financial landscape that has given rise to the so-called scamblogger movement and some recent lawsuits by graduates alleging their schools committed fraud and other deceptive practices regarding portrayals of job prospects.

I wish I had more time to go into depth on this article, but for now the above must suffice as a teaser.  It’s worth a full read.

by Kristen Pavón

A New York Times Christmas Eve op-ed highlights [unsurprising] findings of a Cardozo Law Review study that examined legal assistance during the deportation process.

Sure — a severe lack of representation was found [where isn’t there a shortage of representation?] — however, the study also found that in 14% of cases out of five immigration courts in NY, attorneys were “grossly inadequate.”

The report surveyed judges in five immigration courts and found shoddy lawyering widespread. According to the judges’ responses, in nearly half the New York cases, immigrants who had lawyers received inadequate representation.

Worse, a huge number of immigrants in New York have no representation at all. Although poor defendants in criminal courts are entitled to court-appointed lawyers, people in immigration courts are not. Over all, immigrants appeared in court without a lawyer in nearly 15,000 cases (27 percent of the total) between October 2005 and July 2010. About two-thirds of immigrants in detention were lawyerless. Other jurisdictions provided even less access to counsel: 79 percent of those arrested and transferred to immigration detention in other states lacked attorneys.

The author offers two, somewhat cursory, solutions: 1) dismiss the cases that fall outside of the Obama administration’s focus to free up competent attorneys and 2) having private foundations and bar associations create programs to put young lawyers to work on immigration issues.

I don’t know what the solution to our legal aid representation shortage is, but on the issue of grossly inadequate legal representation — I do believe that law students should be immersed in the actual practice of law before graduating. Too much is at stake. Plus, law students pay way too much in tuition to have to learn on the job.

Read the whole op-ed here. Thoughts?

By: Steve Grumm

A Yale Law librarian has for the past several years compiled a list of the outgoing year’s ten most notable quotes.  Here’s the Detroit Free Press reporting on 2011’s best (and sometimes, worst) rhetorical flourishes:

Fred Shapiro, associate librarian at Yale Law School, has released his sixth annual list of the most notable quotations of the year.

The original “Yale Book of Quotations” was published in 2006. Since then, Shapiro has released an annual list of the top 10 quotes that would be incorporated into the next edition. Shapiro picks quotes that are famous, important or revealing of the spirit of the times, not necessarily ones that are the most eloquent or admirable.

The list:

1. “We are the 99%.” — slogan of the Occupy movement.

2. “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there — good for you! But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.” — U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, speaking in Andover, Mass., in August.

3. “My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress.” — Billionaire Warren Buffett, in a New York Times op-ed on Aug. 15

 …

Click into the story for the rest of the quotes, including Herman Cain’s pronunciation of a central Asian nation, Charlie Sheen being high on life, and former Rep. Anthony Weiner’s seeming inability to recognize…oh, those jokes were always too easy.

By: Steve Grumm

Much ink has been spilled in the past year about the quickly rising cost of legal education, and the return on investment that law grads receive from that education.  A latest installment in the ongoing conversation comes from the American Lawyer, in a piece entitled “ABA Regulations Don’t Cause Tuition Increases, Law Schools Do.”

In the piece, author Matt Leichter deconstructs what he perceives to be the core arguments arising from the most recent of New York Times reporter David Segal’s articles on the value of legal education.  Leichter begins:

In his latest New York Times piece on law schools’ problems, “For Law Schools, a Price to Play the A.B.A.’s Way,” David Segal places the responsibility for needless tuition increases on the American Bar Association’s (ABA) accreditation regime.

…

I think Segal is trying to make three claims here:

(1) The consent decree caused law school tuition to increase over the inflation rate.

(2) Tuition increases at the most well-regarded law schools are caused by U.S. News‘s rankings and the Federal Direct Student Loan Program.

(3) The ABA’s standards cause tuition increases in law schools that are not well regarded by U.S. News.

These are bold statements, particularly the third one, because if they are true, then criticism toward law schools ought to be redirected towards the ABA, and the solutions would probably not require significant modifications to the federal student loan system as it works with law schools.

…