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. 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