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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT