We’ve received a lot of interesting comments to our various posts about the job situation facing law students and newly minted law grads. A case in point is this response we recently received from Lakeville attorney John Murphy in response to our post “NYT: Recent law grads feeling like they are drowning.”
Just an update for those of you wishing to further pick at this scab:
I had lunch this weekend with a colleague from an unnamed southern metro county who is an assistant county atto
rney. This county has recently added two bar-admitted attorneys as “special county attorneys” on a contract basis at $11.00 per hour without benefits.
On the upside, they are free to take time to interview for other positions, and are at least earning something. On the downside, my son was making $8.00 per hour starting wage at Target in 10th grade a couple years ago.
Feel free to discuss.
Please send this anecdote to our ABA President, Ms. Lamm, as a response to her ridiculously self-serving statement on how every Tom, Dick and Harry should be able to go to law school.
More isn’t better.
This is just a simple matter of supply and demand. $11/hour is apparently the market rate. I would expect they had many more than two applicants… probably a whole pile, sadly. Yes, it is ridiculous that they could make more waiting tables or bartending. But they are getting valuable experience. Something to be said for that.
I find it interesting that the big firms are moving away from lockstep. They may secretly dislike that, in this economy, their associates are making six figure salaries and expect yearly, lockstep raises. There is a ton of good talent out there to cherry pick at low cost and then bill out at big bucks.
According to the ABA’s numbers, Minnesota had about 22,448 “Resident and Active attorneys” in 2009. According to the headcount of the 100 largest Minnesota firms at LawMoose.com under 5000 attorneys work at established law firms of 12 attorneys or more. It has been estimated that as of 2008 Minnesota’s population was 5,220,393 people, resulting in a population-to-attorney ratio of about 232.6 people for each lawyer, which is, by far, one of the worst ratios in the country.
With those kinds of numbers, Minnesota obviously has a huge problem with lawyer overproduction and lawyer poverty. Assuming that 10,000 attorneys are gainfully employed in Minnesota as attorneys, 12,448 are either unemployed, underemployed, or forced to work in other fields, which means that their legal education was a complete waste of time and money. Thus, perhaps 12,448 hard-working, ambitious, well-meaning, intelligent people’s lives have been decimated by the ABA’s failure to use attorney birth control. Although this problem is more pronounced in Minnesota than it is in other states, almost every state has a large oversupply of lawyers.
Just how does Ms. Lamm expect these impoverished, debt-ridden, and probably suicidally-depressed law school graduates to pay back their student loans? Is the ABA oblivious to this problem or does it just not care? I suspect that it is the latter.
All but perhaps 75 law schools need to be closed and those 80 should not be allowed to increase their class sizes. If you know a friend or relative or anyone who is contemplating law school, please tell them the truth about the legal job market before someone else becomes a victim.
No legal job, eff it. I’m just going to join the army.
Unemployed 2L: Strategy, strategy. You can still go JAG. Great experience, decent pay, officer prestige. It may be a great adventure.
Seriously though, I am sorry that the 2009-10-11-12 classes have so much added pressure. You don’t need this piled on the expectations of law school. One thing I can tell you, networking and work ethic does make the difference. I can think of at least three people from my class (2007) who landed excellent jobs while being middle of the class due to their either creating their position or being top of mind due to their impressive general office/business/professionalism skills (not legal skills). I guess my point is that YOU count in this equation too. Maybe that is the difference maker!
I think I’m going to leave the state after the completion of my part time job. I’m in the process of researching states to take the July bar. My main considerations are the supply of lawyers in the state and whether I know anyone there.
The competition in Minnesota for lawyers jobs is to difficult for the low level of pay that most new attorneys will receive. Hopefully, Obama’s student loan proposal will pass limiting student loan payments to ten percent of income for twenty years (10 if in government). I will never give money to the University of Minnesota Law School because I feel I was lied to about the job prospects for graduates.
I understand many people will think I have a sense of entitlement, but I can’t support myself on 11 dollars an hour.
Frank
The ABA could care less about the fate of graduates and attorneys. The ABA does the bidding of its two masters: law schools and BigLaw. Both of these entities are doing great in the status quo. The ABA proposed removing the student loan limit which would only serve to increase the student debt level. This is great for law schools though because Professors and Administrative Staff will receive higher salaries.
John
You give good advice and your optimism is welcome. But I think you are incorrect when you state “networking and work ethic does make the difference.” The difference between the number of jobs available and the number of graduates ensures that many hard working student who put in good faith efforts at networking will never get a full time job.
All JAG boards are seeing record numbers of applicants over the past year or two:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/military_reports_spike_in_jag_corps_applicants/
Military Reports Spike in JAG Corps ApplicantsPosted Jun 9, 2009 3:54 PM CST
By Sarah Randag
Several branches of the U.S. Military report that they are on track to have a record number of applicants for Judge Advocate General Corps positions. The Navy received more than twice as many applications in the now-complete 2009 recruiting period than it did in 2008, the National Law Journal reports.
“People are looking for stability right now. We don’t offer the salaries that the larger law firms do, but we offer diverse practices and diverse locations,” Lt. Col. Paulette Burton, the chief judge advocate for recruiting for the Army told the National Law Journal. “As the economy continues to go in this downward spiral, [judge advocates] can count on their salaries and their benefits. We don’t lay people off.”
Burton says that starting base pay for army judge advocates is $40,000 a year, but allowances add $14,400 to that, and the Army recently announced that it would begin offering loan repayments of $65,000 for judge advocates. Marine Corps judge advocates start at between $42,000 and $52,000, while Navy pay starts between $53,000 and $60,000.
Most applicants for JAG positions are still law students, but several branches have noticed more applications from practicing attorneys. The Navy received applications from about 200 practicing attorneys this year, up from the usual 40 or 50.
==================
Military JAG Corps report recruitment surge
Karen Sloan
June 8, 2009
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202431259048&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
…
“The Army has the largest JAG Corps, with approximately 1,700 judge advocates. Burton didn’t have hard numbers, but said Army JAG Corps applications increased by about 30% in fiscal year 2009. ”
…
“The Air Force has the second-largest JAG Corps, with about 1,200 judge advocates. In 2008, it received 769 applications for 120 positions, up by 27% from the 605 applications it received in 2007, according to Lt. Col. Bryan D. Watson, an Air Force judge advocate. The Air Force received 480 applications between January and the end of May, meaning 2009 is on pace to eclipse last year’s total.”
…
“The Navy JAG Corps has approximately 750 judge advocates and has seen the most dramatic increase in applicants from 2008 to 2009 — a 100% jump. The Navy received 923 applications for the 2009 fiscal year, Goldsmith said, and accepted about 75. Slightly more than 8% of the applicants made the cut.”
…
“The Marine Corps, which has the smallest lawyer compliment at about 440 judge advocates, has also seen an increase in applications, said Capt. K. A. Laretto, the deputy staff judge advocate for the Marine Corps Recruiting Command. The total number of applications was not readily available because the Marine Corps doesn’t maintain statistics on the number of applications it rejects, Laretto said. It typically accepts 45 judge advocate applicants with no prior military service per year and another seven to 10 who are already officers in the Marine Corps.”
Why is everyone complaining about the ABA in response to this? How exactly is this the ABA’s fault, problem, or concern? When I was first considering law school, I read a lot about it. Time after time, what I read was, “Don’t go to law school expecting to become fabulously wealthy. The truth is that many lawyers make much less than a six-figure income.” This did not dissuade me, and I knew and accepted the risks going in. Why shouldn’t other potential law students be expected to do their own homework?
If the ABA were making blatantly false promises that guaranteed riches beyond your wildest dreams, then that would merit outrage. But demanding accountability for trying to make it so that anyone who wants to be a lawyer, can be, seems a bit ridiculous.
Those who are saying that there should be less lawyers, and that the ABA should prevent a flood in the marketplace, consider that in recent years there have also been a higher number of college degrees generally. More and more young people are going to college and earning degrees. This makes the value of a college degree diminish, relatively, because it’s not something that makes the holder stand out from the crowd as much. Your argument directed at the ABA would naturally lead to you also arguing, “We should stop encouraging people to go to college, to help others with a college degree retain a higher salary.” Yes, college has a variety of degrees, and law is a particular specialty, but consider that there are many varieties of lawyers, some of whom are doing far better than others, and that most people with a college degree don’t pursue a job that is 100% in line with their degrees.
If you want to criticize anyone, criticize those who failed to understand at the beginning what we all understand now: a law degree is not a guaranteed ticket to wealth. It’s a crap shoot to some extent, and not all that different from other aspects of life. It’s unfortunate that so many people are unemployed, but law is not unique in that respect. But don’t criticize the ABA for making it possible for people to get an education they desire. Instead, we should, as others have recommended, inform the public at large about the truth of law school, and spread the word that a law degree is not a golden ticket.
Brian,
You make some good points about free market principles and personal accountability, but some differences do remain. One, just for example, is that lawyers have a far harder time generating business due to the restrictions on advertising and personal contact than a business owner with a BA.
That said, nothing can beat going in eyes open.
Brian
As John said you make some good points, but I think you are ignoring some things. The ABA does enable law schools to play “hide the ball” on the real employment statistics. It also actively promotes the Myth that Law School is a great investment.
Furthermore, the ABA has supported quite a few proposals that seem only to benefit law schools at the expense of students, (raising the loan cap).
It has also ignored proposals that could make law school cheaper. The most important one is getting rid of the 3L year, which most people acknowledge serves little benefit for students. It does however help law schools generate more money.
I had very good experiences with my clinics, but like most of my classmates, I would have been better off graduating a year early.
“It’s a crap shoot to some extent, and not all that different from other aspects of life.”
How many other $150k crap shoots exist for 22 year olds without significant work experience or income?
“It’s a crap shoot to some extent, and not all that different from other aspects of life.”
How many other $150k crap shoots exist for 22 year olds without significant work experience or income?
Good Point.
The biggest change I would like to see is to allow student loans to be dischargable through bankruptcy. This will exert a downward pressure on tuition and college graduates like everyone else should have the option of starting over.
How about just adding some warning language on the back of the student loan check when students sign it:
“WARNING: MOST STUDENTS DO NOT LAND THE BIG FIRM JOBS FOR WHICH THE STARTING SALARIES ARE PROMINENTLY POSTED IN THE CAREER OFFICE. MORE THAN LIKELY YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY THIS OVER A 10-, 20- or 30-YEAR PERIOD FROM A SALARY NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE YOU WOULD HAVE RECEIVED WITHOUT YOUR LAW DEGREE. IF YOU STILL WANT TO BE LAWYER, SIGN HERE. OTHERWISE, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR LOCAL MEDICAL SCHOOL TO DISCUSS ADMISSIONS REQUIREMENTS.
Mark
In addition to your warning why not require Universities to accumulate real career statistics. We require corporations to have independent accountants to review their books to prevent fraud. Its time to do the same with Universities, because they have shown they cannot be trusted to publish honest information. Also student loans should be dischargeable through bankruptcy just like other types of debt. These two steps along, with reducing law school to two years will go a long way towards solving the current problem.
Mark
Can you give a good argument for why student loans shouldn’t be dischargeable through bankruptcy?
1. I may be a cynic on this, but I don’t think the “real” statistics will ever work. It’s just too prone to manipulation. Even the government “unemployment” rate has only a tangental relationship to how many folks are actually unemployed or underemployed. But I would certainly be in favor of at least better than the inaccurate statistics that we currently have compiled for U.S. News.
2. Non-dischargeability — I can give the argument for nondischargeability — and as far as I know there is only one. The idea with the student loan program is that it would let people go to school and not cost American taxpayers anything. If you allow dischargeability, the government will have to continually replenish student loan funds to keep the program running.
All that said, I am in favor of either making student loans dischargeable or having a better percentage of income option (e.g. 10 percent of income for 10 years). It’s ridiculous from a policy perspective to treat those who made a bad gamble on education worse than those who made some bad gambles in Las Vegas (sorry, Sen. Reid) or who charged up a lifestyle they could not afford. I think the vast majority of students want to earn enough to pay their student loans and other obligations, but sometimes circumstances intervene (e.g. a Great Recession) that make that extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible.
It seems to me that at least two consequences would stem from student loans be dischargeable: (1) such loans would be much harder to get (and likely more costly, particularly for those individuals that pay them off); and/or (2) the Government would step in and tax payers would be stuck with the bill.
I personally don’t want to pay for students’ ill-advised decisions to go to law school.
Student loans are simply not comparable to other loans, which require at least some indicia that you have the ability to pay them off before you are lent the money. That is a very real difference.
So long as the loans are federally backed, they won’t be harder to get or more costly — unless the government decides to make them so to cover the costs of discharges (in which case the taxpayer argument would not be available). Thus, only one of those consequences would actually flow.
I agree that neither consequence is particularly appealing, but neither is the situation that a growing number of law grads are finding themselves in. It only becomes apparent that their decision was “ill-advised” after it’s too late. Going to law school actually works out pretty well for some people.
I agree Mark, that the situation is not ideal and I am sympathetic to the circumstances many find themselves in.
However, there is a very real cost to having the government back student loans. If such debt is suddenly now dischargeable — that cost increases greatly.
With the over-saturation in the profession (even well before the recession), I am not sure taxpayers should be asked to back every individual’s aspirations to be a lawyer, doctor, vet, etc. — more than the public already does. Obviously, if someone is willing to take on debt to reach their goals — that is great. The fact is any career choice is a gamble.
A difficult issue — no doubt — but I’d like to think there are better solutions out there.
Agreed. And to some extent the government intervention is the problem. While well-intentioned, the student loan program has allowed law schools to inflate their tuition to the point where almost everybody needs the loan assistance to go. Stretching it even further, the grads need to make lots of money to pay back those loans (principal and interest) when they get out. The whole system implodes when law grads don’t make lots of money.
The eventual answer is to find ways to encourage those smart young people who are flexible about what they want to do into a career fields where their efforts are more needed.
The short term problem is what do with all those people who made what they thought was a smart decision in getting a legal education, only to have the rug pulled out from them now. I don’t think most of them even want a discharge — they just want to be able to do something meaningful and live the semblence of the American dream (home, car, family, etc.) There are no easy answers to this conundrum.
Anonymous and Mark
First, even though this is a law blog and were focusing on Law School loan issues, the real problem is the way we fund higher education in the US. This is a societal problem in which we try to supply a public good mostly through private sector funding. It is neither cost efficient (the US spends much more on Higher Education than other developed countries) nor effective at getting Americans into school (were falling behind other developed countries in our rate of educational achievement.
So in the end, if I understand both of your arguments, the current system is basically the result of the tax phobia of the American voter. Both of you cite the goal of avoiding taxing people to pay for college. Anonymous states that he doesn’t way to pay for people to go to school. Mark cites this as a worthy goal. I disagree. We all benefit from having a more educated work force, in the form of higher productivity and greater economic growth.
The current system is neither cost efficient. The US spends much more on Higher Education than other developed countries. Neither is it effective at getting Americans into school were falling behind other developed countries in our rate of educational achievement. We should study other countries to figure out they have kept college affordable. If this means higher taxes, so be it. The present situation is far worse than having to pay slightly higher taxes.
It would be far cheaper to just have the government directly fund student’s education. The government would be able to assert a heavy downward pressure on prices. This is similar to the health care sector, were the government is more effective than the private sector.
But enjoy your lower taxes
I wonder what the economic cost is in total on the govenrment (and the GDP) for thousands of chronically unemployed/underemployed law graduates? Is it more or less than the drag resulting from dischargeability?
I will also add Obama had a good suggestion in the State of the Union for a first step toward reforming the current situation.
“Obama’s plan calls for limiting payment on student loans to no more than 10 percent of that portion of their salary that exceeds $16,245, which is 150 percent of the poverty rate. Anyone making less than that amount would owe nothing.”
“In addition, the plan forgives loans - no matter what the remaining balance - after 10 years for those working in government or non-profit jobs. Those working in the private sector would have their loans forgiven after 20 years.”
This is far better than the status quo and would offer serious relief to a large portion of the population that is struggling badly. It would also help the country by pushing talented people into the public sector.
Sadly though, I don’t think this proposal will be adopted. I already saw the clips on the internet of the Fox News Propaganda machine hammering away at this proposal.
John
We shouldn’t think about this problem as being simply about “law gradautes” its all people with student loans
UMN, I will not speak for Mark, but I think you are reading too much into what I wrote.
I have no problem with education being subsidized by taxpayers — education should be affordable.
I do not support, however, the notion that taxpayers should support every single individual’s “right” to go to law school — particularly where we know the demand is not there. My views might change if there were less law schools and they were more selective. Let’s face it — there are enough law schools out there, where just about anyone can fill out an application and be admitted if they are willing to rack up enough debt. You’re right, I don’t want responsibility for that debt.
Also, what if I want to go to law school, medical school and get my PhD?. Should taxpayers flip the bill? I would certainly be well-educated — which should be a societal value. I know this is not what you’re suggesting — but where do you draw the line? I agree completely with your concern with the rising cost of education.
My apologies for misunderstanding your argument. I want to be clear that I’m not simply talking about law school.
I think your concerns can be addressed by more central planning from the state and a greater pressure on costs. (tracking of students, limitations on majors, reduction of the number of years it takes to get a degree, more online courses, etc.). I also think it would be appropriate to study the European countries who have seemly solved this dilemma based on graduation rates and student debt levels (or at least having done a better job handling this problem than we have).