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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT