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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT