Pricing people out?

July 29, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
To continue with the theme of law school tuition, I want to know if the astronomical amount people spend to become an attorney has hurt the profession.

Law school costs a lot of money. Students spend more than what the average worker at a minimum wage job would earn annually to go to law school for a year. When it’s all said and done, many students graduate thousands of dollars in debt. According to an April 2009 New York Times article, the average graduate leaves with more than $80,000 in debt.

Some students are lucky – they get scholarships, can work to help pay off their loans while still in school, or have a relative helping out.

Not everyone is so lucky, which brings me back to my original thought. With law school tuition being so high, are we pricing people out of the profession who may make great lawyers but just can’t afford the cost of law school?

Diversity is something law firms strive for. Not only diversity in race and gender, but also in people’s backgrounds and experiences. A white male who grew up attending private school and living in a 5-bedroom house may bring something different to the table than a white male who grew up on welfare.

The profession is making strides in being more diverse, but obviously, there is still more to be done. A co-worker told me she read a blog online that made the argument that law schools are becoming “too elitist” because they are pricing people out of school.

The high price of tuition may be hurting the diversity of the profession, but it also may cause graduates to forgo their idea of working as a public defender or at a legal services organization. If you’ve got $80,000 of law school debt, and your job as a public defender only pays half of that a year, but being a first year at a private firm pays $100,000, suddenly the private firm becomes more attractive. That same NYT article said two-thirds of students said debt prevented them from considering a non-private firm job.

There will always be people who want to be lawyers and people willing and able to pay for it. I do wonder that if law school was more affordable, whether the profession would look differently from a diversity perspective than it does today.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • The other important issue is if a private law school is worth it, when you can go to a state school for much cheaper.
  • Law schools are failing the justice system by graduating too many students. Med students pay much more for school because they know they\'ll earn back their investment in a reasonable time. The AMA regulates the number of seats to med students to fit the market. High prices won\'t scare away students if they know its worth it. For many law students, they incur $35,000 in debt for 3 years only to land a job that pays $40,000. The economics don\'t make sense. Slow down the flow of new lawyers. Thanks!
  • Nothing new about this at all. Increased use of student loans to get through law school started when I was in law school in the late Eighties. Combined with Indian\'s declining economy, law students wre going to firms and/or out of state. In the past twenty years, I think Anderson and Madison County has seen only maybe a half dozen new attorneys. Of the other counties I practice in most (Grant, Delaware, and Henry) I suspect the same is true but not so true in Howard and Hamilton Counties. Skip the public defender/firm comparison, we will see fewer (are seeing?) solos as people need to have salaries to pay their educational debt. I expect to see a lot of people unavailable to get legal services in the near future.

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT