Indiana has more lawyers than legal work

June 5, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

If you were a new law school grad in recent years this may not be news to you, but Indiana has more potential lawyers than legal work available, based on research by a blog.

The Law School Tuition Bubble’s Matt Leichter broke down how states faired in 2011 regarding the number of attorneys as compared to jobs for lawyers. Indiana made the top 10 of worst states, based on the number of law grads for each job opening. Those law grads may or may not have passed the bar.

We had 3.03 law grads for each job opening, based on those 2011 numbers. Mississippi has the unfortunate distinction of coming in first with 10.53 law grads for each job opening. Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska and New York were also in the top 10. The statistics include law grad numbers from ABA-accredited law schools and are based on projected annual lawyer job growth by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and state governments for 2011.

Leichter explains his research and methodology in an Am Law Daily article last month.

Are you surprised by the numbers for Indiana?
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Faulty Logic
    Headline says not enough "Legal Work" when actually the data relates to available positions/jobs. Illogical to conclude that just because job opening are few there is no "legal work" needing a lawyer in Indiana! As pro bono plan administrator for NWI I can assure the legal world that there are many many folks who need "legal work" help and can barely pay their rent/food/utilities/gas for work, let alone a lawyer.
  • Good
    The Tax lawyer throughout India help in dealing with the particular specialists, as well as provide you with a preventing probability for a realistic solution. the abilities along with remaining operating can be a significant component of having a profitable legal career. Guides could perform a vital component in your skilled improvement. nctrafficlawyer

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
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT