ILNews

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.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT