The Future of Legal Education

04/15/10

Until recently, lawyers at large firms got on the job training while drawing six figure salaries, but that model is starting to fall apart. Large clients are insisting that first and second year associates not be assigned to their account because they don't want to foot the bill for their training. At a conference of law school deans, educators and lawyers held this past Friday, Chester Paul Beach, associate general counsel of United Technologies Corp., said his firm won't pay for first and second year associates because ''they're worthless.''


This presents a dilemma to large firms. Lawyers come out of top law schools in debt up to their ears, which in turn drives up the market salary for first year associates. To recoup those salaries, firms need to bill for their hours, and now clients are refusing to share that cost. Add to this a more fluid job market and it's not improbable for a firm to shell out over $300k in salary that they never recoup if the associate changes firms. Clients don't want to pay for a young lawyer's education, firms don't want to pay for it, and the first year associate is maxed out in debt having paid for it once already. There is a growing consensus that the job of law schools should be to teach their students not only the law but the practical business of being lawyers as well.

Some schools, such as Washington and Lee University, have already taken steps toward a solution by offering a third year curriculum that puts more emphasis on the practice of law. More practical courses in school will help new lawyers be better prepared for their duties in the real world, but will two semesters of practical instruction really prepare a student for the wide range of daily responsibilities they will be expected to master as a lawyer?

There are other solutions being floated about. One would be to shorten law school to two years. If students finish in two years they'll come out of school with less debt, which in turn could depress the salaries of junior associates. But even if they are being paid less, clients may still object to paying for their on the job training. Another possibility is for lawyers to enter a residency program after graduation, much the same way a doctor does.

Of course there are some solutions nobody wants to discuss, like lowering the cost of law school. Doing that would require paying professors less or requiring more classroom time from professors, thereby reducing the size of the faculty. Here's another thought – If Harvard is doing no better at preparing lawyers for the job than a third tier school, firms could lower salary expectations by looking past the top tier schools for qualified applicants.

Perhaps there is no one clear solution and ultimately the answer will be to provide multiple paths toward a functional legal education. That won't help this year's crop of new lawyers, burdened down with student loans in an economy where nobody wants to pay for their work.

Learn the 10 Factors That Matter to Big Firms More Than Where You Went to Law School