Chinn: The Future of the Profession, Part 1

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

iba-chinn-scottOctober 15, 2012 was a day 423 lawyers will remember for the rest of their lives. That’s because it was the day they were sworn into the Indiana bar. I was pleased to be there too on behalf of the Indianapolis Bar Association.

If you generally like lawyers and admire the contributions that most of them make toward creating a civil society, then it is hard not to feel happy for these (mostly) young people who stood before the Chief Justice Dickson and a stunning array of his fellow judicial officers. They looked great as they wore the uniform of the profession and also wore expressions that concealed what I suspect was elation and nervous excitement about beginning their careers. Their family members beamed with pride and joy, no doubt adhering to a self-imposed moratorium on lawyer jokes.

And there is every reason to think that these new members of the bar will have successful careers. But at the risk being labeled a killjoy, I must admit that as I listened to the words of wisdom and congratulations from the judges and lawyers, I was also concerned about their job prospects. How many of these new admittees have law jobs? How many have the law jobs they went to law school to garner? How many have education-related debt that will make it tough to make ends meet? A few years from now, how will the metrics of the economy and the state of the profession have evolved to shape the opportunities and contribute to the well being of these lawyers?

As I’ve mentioned in this column before, the IndyBar is working on a set or programs to assist lawyers, including new lawyers, who are looking for jobs or feel underemployed. But we should also recognize that the supply of new lawyers probably exceeds the demand for quality law jobs – jobs that afford adequate service of student debt loads and a quality of life, let alone personal fulfillment. One great question of the times is whether this condition will persist. I don’t want to be a pessimist, but I think we should assume it will. Our economy simply will demand fewer lawyers in the future – at least, fewer lawyers whose salary requirements (owing in substantial part to education costs) in turn require fees that price many consumers out of the market for legal services. Ironically, there likely won’t be less demand for legal services; there will be less demand for legal services provided by lawyers. Witness the success of LegalZoom and other low cost substitutes for traditional legal services.

Let me interject here that I do not mean to purvey gloom and doom. I remain bullish that lawyers will continue to be central to protecting the rights and interests Americans hold dearly and will promote the non-violent dispute resolution that is the hallmark of the American democracy. But getting a good law job and having a stable legal career just is and will be more difficult.

So, even as we address the current dilemma of trying to match lawyers with quality opportunities to work in our professions, we must also focus attention on the underlying demographics of the profession. Of course, that conversation is underway in law schools, journals, and among economists. But I don’t think we should be content to let it play out on a macroeconomic level. Rather, I think we should assess these conditions in our own community, draw some conclusions, and determine whether the practicing bar can make a difference. Should law schools be taking fewer students? How do we permit more students to leave school with less debt? And what do we do to address the apparent problem that law school applications from minority candidates are falling out of proportion to a decline in law school applications overall?

I know many others too think we ought to be weighing in on the number crunching and innovation required to change the status quo. I look forward to the IndyBar playing a role in that conversation.•


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  2. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  3. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  4. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?

  5. Research by William J Federer Chief Justice John Marshall commented May 9, 1833, on the pamphlet The Relation of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States written by Rev. Jasper Adams, President of the College of Charleston, South Carolina (The Papers of John Marshall, ed. Charles Hobson, Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2006, p, 278): "Reverend Sir, I am much indebted to you for the copy of your valuable sermon on the relation of Christianity to civil government preached before the convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Charleston, on the 13th of February last. I have read it with great attention and advantage. The documents annexed to the sermon certainly go far in sustaining the proposition which it is your purpose to establish. One great object of the colonial charters was avowedly the propagation of the Christian faith. Means have been employed to accomplish this object, and those means have been used by government..." John Marshall continued: "No person, I believe, questions the importance of religion to the happiness of man even during his existence in this world. It has at all times employed his most serious meditation, and had a decided influence on his conduct. The American population is entirely Christian, and with us, Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it. Legislation on the subject is admitted to require great delicacy, because freedom of conscience and respect for our religion both claim our most serious regard. You have allowed their full influence to both. With very great respect, I am Sir, your Obedt., J. Marshall."