ILNews

Dean's Desk: Law schools can't be good, fast and cheap

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Dean Andrew KleinIt is no secret that legal education has faced criticism in recent years. In fact, a virtual cottage industry has developed around the topic. Entire websites and blogs are devoted to the theme, some specializing in cynical and sarcastic commentary.

Separating wheat from chaff in this environment is hard. Legal educators face serious issues and must deal with them head-on. But we should do so in a civil and thoughtful way, mindful of our obligation to prepare those who will steward our system of justice.

So here is a brief attempt to address the most salient criticisms that legal educators confront:

Law schools do not do enough to produce “practice-ready” lawyers. Some maintain that our curriculum fails to teach skills that new attorneys need in the real world.

Legal education is too expensive. Even at a school like mine, which has the lowest tuition price for Indiana residents, the cost of a J.D. degree is about $75,000 over three or four years.

Law schools are producing more graduates than the job market can absorb. Or perhaps more accurately, law school graduates are not finding work at a pay level sufficient to finance their debt.

Standing alone, these issues are difficult. But tackling them simultaneously poses a conundrum. The problem reminds me of an old business saying: “Good, Fast, Cheap. Pick Two.” As the saying suggests, it is nearly impossible to achieve all three at the same time. Providing a good product fast won’t be cheap. Providing a cheap product fast won’t be good. And providing a good product cheap … well, that can’t be accomplished fast.

So what do we do?

First, the issue of producing “practice-ready” lawyers is important, but hardly new. In fact, it has been a topic of heated discussion for at least a generation. I actually think law schools are doing a better job on that front than ever before. Many schools, like mine, invest heavily in legal writing programs and live-client clinics. That is definitely good. But it is not cheap. Faculty who engage in skills training work intensely and individually with students. On a per student basis, this costs far more than, say, streaming a video of a lecture and calling it education.

Understand that this is not a complaint. Investment in experiential education is critical. Developing great lawyers also requires the time, investment and passion of experienced members of the bar. One of the reasons I am excited about being dean at the Indiana University McKinney School of Law is because of our close relationship with so many outstanding lawyers in this community. Our partnership with the bar is what will lead to the success of the next generation of lawyers; it is not a magic bullet in the law school curriculum.

What about the cost of legal education? Again, we have no dearth of suggestions. Some promote two-year law degrees. Others argue that we should de-professionalize the legal academy and provide more, if not most, of our instruction through part-time faculty or distance education. Those steps would save costs, but I doubt they would lead to the development of truly good professionals, ready to represent clients on Day 1. I often ask those in practice: If we reduce the amount of legal education, are you prepared to pick up the mantle and provide even more training for new lawyers than you do now?

I believe that one of the most important steps toward addressing the cost issue is to focus on flexibility. That is another reason I am proud to lead the McKinney School of Law. We are the only school in the region that still offers a part-time evening program. Being able to work while pursuing a legal education can make school more affordable and, for many, provide excellent experiences as well. I hope members of the bar will stand up to those who say we should cut corners when preparing new lawyers. Society has too much at stake to risk being fast and cheap, without worrying about being good.

Regarding employment opportunities, the market for legal work is not the only aspect of our economy that has faced disruption since the Great Recession. But pockets of society still face unmet needs for legal services. This includes more than just people with low incomes. A recent article by a professor at Albany Law School pointed out that many in the middle class cannot afford adequate legal representation. The article asserted that opportunities do exist for creative and motivated attorneys who can find ways to deliver quality legal services to those who are underserved.

Finally – and perhaps most important – I think it’s important for all lawyers to convey pride in our profession and what it stands for. In that sense, I end my column where I started – with my view that too much of our conversation is driven by anonymous critics, sarcasm and cynicism. As an antidote, I recently read a book called “The Devil in the Grove,” by Gilbert King. It recounts the story of a young Thurgood Marshall representing four young men in Groveland, Fla., in the late 1940s. The men had been wrongly accused of a heinous crime.

One thing that struck me early in the book was a quote from Marshall’s assistant about how Marshall was received by people when he traveled to small towns during that period of time. His assistant recalled: “They came in their jalopy cars and their overalls. All they wanted to do – if they could – was just touch him, just touch him. Lawyer Marshall, as if he were a god.”

People looked up to Marshall, not just because of who he was, but because of his profession. They recognized that when injustice needed confrontation – it was the law, and by extension the lawyer, to whom they looked.

I am proud to be part of that tradition, and equally proud to be leading an institution that will train the lawyers of tomorrow.•

__________

Andrew R. Klein is the dean and the Paul E. Beam Professor of Law at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

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 like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT