More law schools, fewer jobs

June 18, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
According to a recent news story, there are now 200 ABA-accredited law schools in the United States, with some states looking to add even more schools. Indiana currently has four, and just a few years ago, two Indiana colleges were looking into opening up their own law schools. Those have fallen to the wayside at least for now, but one businessman with more than a decade of experience in higher education but not an attorney himself is still pursuing his goal of opening up the Abraham Clark School of Law (http://abrahamclarklaw.com/) in Indianapolis with a goal of reaching working adults who are looking to go back to school.

Last year, a record 150,000 students enrolled in law schools nationwide. Law school has historically been seen as an automatic, successful career; a well-respected option if you are unsure of what you want to do after college. It makes sense that the demand for a law degree is at an all time-high because right now, the economy is struggling. When the economy is down, many people choose to go back to school. Yet as the story points out, more people in the job pool means more competition for the same legal jobs. In fact, with a slowing economy, those new grads may find themselves with few or no job prospects as firms, courts, and government offices cut back hiring to curb costs.

Colleges and universities are trying to start new, ABA-accredited law schools to meet this high demand, but are they doing a disservice to their students by admitting them, teaching them, and then sending them out into the world with a mountain of debt and bleaker employment prospects than in years past? Or more importantly, does Indiana or the United States need more attorneys? If you look at the public defender’s offices or legal aid offices in most counties, you’d say yes, we need more lawyers to help keep up with the demand for these services. However, many attorneys want to work at higher paying jobs at law firms in order to pay off their school debts. Perhaps if law school debt wasn’t approaching $100,000 or more for some students, more people would look to lower-paying jobs where there may be more of a need for lawyers as opposed to working for large law firms where there may be fewer job opportunities.
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
  1. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT