Most states (including Indiana) have too many lawyers

July 5, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

This news doesn’t help Indiana Tech in its explanation for why it’s decided to open up a law school in northeast Indiana. Economic Modeling Specialists Inc., a consulting company that looks at employment data and provides economic analysis, found there are more attorneys than jobs available in nearly every state.

According to its data, it estimates there will be 339 annual openings each year from 2010 to 2015. Sounds good for those recent grads and unemployed attorneys looking for jobs, right? The bad news is that in 2009, 602 people passed the bar here. If we took these numbers as fact, then every year, 263 would not be able to find a job in the legal profession. Granted, you have to consider that maybe some of the people who passed the bar may take jobs out of state or jobs in which they don’t need to become members of the bar. But that still leaves more attorneys than jobs here.

New York fared the worst – EMSI estimates it has more than 7,600 attorneys than jobs in that state. For those with legal degrees willing to go where the work is, try Nebraska, Wisconsin or Washington, D.C. The report shows Nebraska could actually use three more attorneys, Wisconsin has a deficit of 14 attorneys (although the number could be skewed because you don’t have to pass the bar to practice in that state), and D.C. is looking for nearly 350 lawyers. Overall, the nation has a surplus of more than 27,000 attorneys.

This is just one study, but it does offer a glimpse at how tough the job market is for attorneys right now. EMSI used the number of people who passed the bar in each state and compared that to an estimate of job openings for attorneys in those states. It also looked at data from the Department of Education on law school graduates to determine the number of new lawyers.

Tell me why then Indiana Tech thinks it’s a good idea to open up a law school. They claim their research tells them Indiana is actually underserved when it comes to lawyers.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • It's obvious
    Indiana Tech is trying to make sure that some out of work lawyers get jobs as faculty at their new law school...after all, it will be 3 years that they will help the attorney employment percentage in Indiana before they have their first graduating class...makes sense don't you think?
  • Nonsense!
    Why doesn't the ABA mandate lawschools limit law school students to some number to justify the the excessive tuition. I pity young law students.
  • Missing the point
    I believe you all are missing the bigger picture. Though there are out of work "lawyers" in every state, there are still many JDs getting jobs where they aren't practicing (by choice and design) all over the country. In addition, there are more law school applicants than there are law school open slots. Why shouldn't Indiana Tech provide a service to people interested in a law school education? Practicing law isn't the only purpose for obtaining your JD.

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT