ILNews

Finding a new course for legal education

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In trying to chart the best course for law schools, it is important to realize everyone has an opinion.

The American Bar Association’s Task Force for the Future of Legal Education, led by retired Indiana Chief Justice Randall Shepard, learned just how many views and opinions there are during a recent symposium in Indianapolis.

legal ed conference 2 The American Bar Association’s Task Force on the Future of Legal Education held a daylong discussion at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Retired Indiana Chief Justice Randall Shepard (standing) spoke to the group of attorneys, judges, bar association officials and professors. (Photo courtesy of David Jaynes)

A collection of academics, practicing attorneys, bar association leaders and judges gathered April 24 at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law to give their input and advice on how law schools should address the future needs of the legal profession.

The task force is charged with examining legal education in the United States and making recommendations that will help tackle the problems of student debt and diminished employment prospects, and changes in how law is practiced.

Shepard noted the committee has accelerated its schedule and will be offering a preliminary report in late summer or early fall.

Speaking after the first session, Shepard said problems of rising debt and limited job prospects are a threat not just to schools but also to how the legal profession helps society.

“At the end of the day, this is not just the ABA’s concern; it is the concern of judges, of firms, of universities. We’ll do as much as we think is practical to do in order to help address the various elements of the current crisis,” he said.

The symposium at I.U. McKinney School of Law is anticipated to be the only one of its kind convened by the task force. In the morning session, moderator Jay Conison, former Valparaiso University School of Law dean, asked the participants for advice on what the task force should focus on and how the final report should look.

Many noted the pressures on law schools are coming from upheaval in the legal profession itself as well as the marketplace. As such, they advocated that the task force avoid one-size-fits-all regulations on law schools. Instead, the institutions should be given the freedom to craft their own solutions to the problems.

Others pointed to the reality of the market where many individuals have to represent themselves in court. Contrary to conventional wisdom about the glut of lawyers, members of the poor and middle classes are unable to afford the services of many attorneys.

William Henderson, director of the Center on the Global Legal Profession at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, said legal education has to consider the broad changes brought by automation and globalization before developing an economic solution.

“I think just thinking about the economic solutions of legal education is going to get us into trouble because the political dimensions of what’s coming, I think when we step back and look, are going to be just staggering, and we should be focusing on that,” he said.

Shepard said the conversations about requirements being too tight on law schools and the way that legal services are adjusting to the market were among his primary takeaways from the opening session.

Also, while many in the room had plenty of criticism for law schools, he drew attention to the contribution those institutions have made.

“… the existing set of schools and those existing set of requirements do have a lot to say for them,” he said. “They have produced a practicing bar and a set of courts that is envied in much of the world, and therefore (we) have to be very thoughtful about the potential to do damage to a system which overall has proven pretty successful.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Reconsider
    With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.
  • Suggestion
    For what it's worth, I'd like to share my opinion. Over the last year, I have been investigating law school options, including taking my LSATs and finishing in the top third. And those options are limited. You see, I am about as non-traditional of a student as you can get. I'm a married, father of five who is employed full time. I'm fifteen years into my career and am looking to do something that I've always wanted to do, but never did. Law also would be a good supplement to the skills I already have. I'm not looking to join a firm or to make millions. Law schools need to join the 21st century and embrace online learning. For one, it's more affordable for somebody such as myself. For another, because of the constraints of job and family, I simply don't have the time to follow a cohort and the rigidity that such a system demands. I am actively involved in regulatory compliance. I have written laws/suggested changes that have made their way into Indiana Code. As a non-lawyer, if I can accomplish this, why can't I be trusted enough to work independently at home, on my schedule to meet the requirements of a legal education? At the end of the day, whether the learning is accomplished over the internet or in a classroom, the test for admission to the bar is the same. Online law school needs to be an option in Indiana.

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. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT