Study reveals lawyers leaving the practice of law

February 18, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A unique longitudinal study following the career paths of lawyers who passed the bar in 2000 has found that 24 percent – nearly a quarter of them – were no longer practicing law in 2012.

Researchers from After the JD, which is a project of the American Bar Foundation, have been following a national sample of lawyers who passed the bar in 2000, interviewing participants in 2003, 2007 and 2012. The panel presented some preliminary results from its 2012 survey at the American Bar Association’s midyear meeting in Chicago earlier this month.

The statistic that jumps out the most is the number of non-practicing attorneys. In 2003, 14.7 percent of respondents were not practicing law. But the data also shows some trends concerning where attorneys are ending up. In 2003, 38.4 percent of survey respondents worked in the business sector; by 2012, 27.7 percent reported working in that area. In 2003, 53.3 percent of Top 10 law school graduates reported working for a firm with at least 251 attorneys; by 2012 that number had fallen to 16.8 percent.

Another interesting stat: When the 2012 respondents were asked if they would go to law school if they had to do it all over again, the average response was 4.91, rated on a scale of 1 to 7.

You can read other stats on the ABA’s website. Visit the American Bar Foundation’s website for more on the After the JD project.

Anyone who passed the bar in 2000 care to chime in with how your legal career in 2012 compared to what you were doing in 2003?
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Error Reporting the Stats
    A 10 percent increase is not the same as an increase of 10 percentage points. Since the number not practicing law went from 14.7 to 24.1, it should be described as an increase of nearly 10 percentage points.
  • 39% Increase
    Ben, the reporter did get the increase wrong but not as you say. It went from 14.7% in 2003 to 24.1%. That's a difference of 9.4%. Thus, between 2003 and 2013, the increase in attorneys out of the profession ix 9.4% x 100 divided by 24.1% which is a 39% increase in 2000 attorneys leaving the profession from 2003 to 2014.
    • Depends on the base number
      Paul - I stand by my statement that the proper way of describing this is that it's an increase of nearly 10 percentage points (actually, 9.4 as you point out), as opposed to a 10% increase. I was not making any comment on what the actual percent increase was. Rather, I was trying to clarify the use of the terms "percent increase" and "percentage point increase." It turns out that the actual percent increase is more like 64%. For instance, say there were 40,000 attorneys in the class of 2000. If 14.7% of them were not practicing in 2003, that would be 5,880 people. If 24.1% of them were not practicing in 2012, that would be 9,640 of them. 9,640 is about a 64% increase over 5,880 ((9,640-5,880)/5,880 = .6395).
      • no your wrong
        arguing like a bunch of lawyers

      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. 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