Does Indiana have enough lawyers?

May 16, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Is Indiana hurting for lawyers? According to Indiana Tech, the answer is yes. The school’s board of trustees approved moving forward with creating a law school in Fort Wayne and hopes to enroll its first class in the fall of 2013.

In a release about the approval, one of the factors the school cited as a reason to establish a fifth law school in Indiana is that the state is underserved by the number of lawyers relative to our population and economic activity.

What do you think about that statement?
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • too many lawyers
    I say go ask all of this year's graduates of the existing 4 law schools who dont have jobs if THEY think the state doesn't have enough lawyers.

    That comment is obviously made by a school who wants to crank out students for money without any regard to ultimately what happens to them, just like a puppy mill.
  • Enough!
    Many lawyers are already underemployed. Adding more will not help anyone
  • This is a joke isn't it.
    You can't swing a cat without hitting a lawyer...it is ridiculous to say there are not enough...very few recent graduates I know have jobs, most people are taking a year or more to get a job...we don't need more, but I am sure that won't stop acadamia from making more...they exist in a vacuum...maybe some of the lawyers who can't find work will be able to teach at Indiana Tech.
  • Absurd
    I know lawyers who graduated from Indiana law schoools in 2008 and 2009 who still don't have law-related jobs and on top of that, many that do are considerably underpaid and underemployed. And I'm not talking about people living in remote areas of the state. If anything, the number of people enrolling in law school should shift drastically down to meet the market.
  • Hard To Believe
    I would like to see the statistical study and the credentials and agenda of the people who conducted the study to support the conclusion, if a credible study was even conducted. Then I would like to see a study of what the taxpayers would be contributing to the project along with a credible cost-benefit study.

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT