Post-Black Thursday thoughts

I know everyone and his or her mother has already commented on the layoffs at many firms yesterday. This is something we haven't seen since the early 90s and even then probably not on this scale. Nonetheless, to close out the week I do have a few comments on the situation. (There is also a good summary here that contains many of these ideas.)

  • The layoffs had to happen not only because of a lack of work but also because of a lack of normal attrition in a down market. Of course, the fact that some law firm managers plan on and expect 25% attrition is entirely another problem.
  • We've let our profession become a business driven by profit and loss. Because of the business model, some move around like nomads either because of it and/or because they know they are almost as fungible as associates. I'm not sure we can close Pandora's Box, but it is food for thought.
  • First year associates are, by and large, overpaid and useless. I know. I used to be one. And now, of course, clients do not want first-years assigned to their matters. Can you blame them? How do you solve this problem?
  • I actually like the idea of cutting salaries. But the problem is that law school has become so expensive that you will never be able to pay loans back. Making first years cheaper is the issue in my opinion.
  • Medical schools have it right. There is a scarcity of them and thus a scarcity of doctors. We are cranking out too many JDs in this country, many of whom are doomed to have huge loans and no way of paying them back as lawyers. Personally, I'd reduce the number of schools drastically.
  • I really, really like the idea of articling like they do in Canada. Have graduates intern (like doctors) at a law firm for a year -- working cheaply -- and learning the basics of actually being a lawyer. And this possibly solves the problem of untrained first year associates. Of course, that system is not perfect either and there have even been thoughts about getting rid of the practice in Ontario.
Anyway, I do not have all the answers. I'm not sure I have any. And I feel terrible for all the people that were let go. But maybe this is a good time to rethink business models and existing paradigms and look outside the box we have been in for so long.

Charles Whitebread, RIP

I was sad to read at Above The Law that my GWATS (gifts, wills and trusts -- that's what we called the class) professor from law school, Charles Whitebread, passed away yesterday.

Most lawyers under age 50 probably know from his lectures for BAR/BRI, the dominant bar exam preparation course. I was blessed to have some great law professors, but Charlie really made learning law interesting and fun, believe it or not.

He was more than fun, though. Charlie was also a first rate legal scholar on criminal procedure, the Supreme Court and juvenile law. He'll be missed, and may he rest in peace.

Charlie's bio - USC Law School

Charlie's Homepage

Remembering Charlie Whitebread

Susan Estrich on Charlie

The Volokh Conspiracy (including comments from my law school classmate Ed Hoffman)

Here's the latest reminder on salaries

First of all, I hope no one minds the new layout too much. I needed a change and I probably will again soon. I'm planning to retain someone to customize the blog for me and give it a "clean" look.

Moving right along: The Tribune's caught up with the trend of reporting on the disparities between high-earning lawyers and their counterparts with this magazine story today, with stories of lawyers working second jobs at bars, people feeling they wasted three years on a degree and other tales, some of which I've seen before.

Some stylebook errors aside (referring to firms such as Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz by their first names only on first reference is a faux pas imo, especially in a non-trade publication), it is a good story. My one substantive quibble is that I do not recall it mentioning the fact that successful trial lawyers make the most money of all.

I know I am beating a very dead horse, but it bears repeating, especially if predictions of more outsourcing, the rise of paralegals performing unsupervised work lawyers now do, etc. come true. The monetary returns of law school aren't great for the average person, especialy nowadays with crippling debts upon graduation. Personally, I'd shut down about 60% or more of our law schools, but what do I know?

This can't be right -- law school teaching you how to be a lawyer?

There's an old saying about law school that goes something like this: the first year they scare you to death, the second year they work you to death, and the third year they bore you to death.

With all due respect to my professors, I found the third year utterly useless. I had classmates that did not attend one class the entire 3L year, and they did just fine. We were all worried about getting jobs in an awful economy.

Now the Law Blog tells us that Washington & Lee Law School is replacing its entire 3L curriculum with practical things such as time-tracking, client interaction...things you actually do as a lawyer! How refreshing. I've advocated for some years reforming legal education to including something similar to articling, as they do in Canada. The broad based training these people receive for their first year out of school is, in my view, a very good idea. I think it creates a more well-rounded attorney. Of course, I am speaking as a former litigator, so I have a little of that.

A few random thoughts on this reform:

1. I think I would make it optional, at least at first. The whole throw the baby out with the bathwater approach may be too innovative.

2. What will the accreditation people at the ABA say about this?

3. What will employers and prospective law students say? There's something to be said about voting with one's feet.

4. I'd be interested in seeing how realistic the training will be. If it is garbage in, garbage out ten it is no better than the typical 3L year.

5. What will the faculty reaction be? Is this a way of cutting faculty cost by replacing some with lower-cost adjuncts?