Holding Law Schools Accountable

(Note: This article was cross posted on Medium.com).

For anyone who just graduated from law school, the last several months of the year can be an anxious time. These aspiring attorneys find out whether they passed the bar exam, and, if they haven’t already secured a post-graduation job, will scramble to figure out what their next steps are.

In 2015, bar exam passage rates continued to plummet across the nation, including in some of the country’s largest legal markets. In California, the overall bar passage rate fell to a dismal 46.6%, which was the lowest level in nearly three decades. In New York, while the overall bar passage rate was a somewhat stronger 61%, 2015 brought the poorest results recorded in the state in 35 years.

What’s behind this national plunge in bar exam performance?  Erica Moeser, president of the National Conference of Bar Examiners, has argued that a drop in the skill levels of recent law school graduates is to blame. Moeser points to a decline, beginning in 2010, in the 25th percentile of LSAT scores for entering law students, across the vast majority of law schools (median scores have fallen at most schools as well). As students with lower scores (and impliedly lower academic ability) are admitted, the argument goes, bar passage rates have decreased. Some law school deans, most notably Nick Allard of Brooklyn Law School, have vociferously challenged Moeser’s arguments, although there has been little actual refutation of the data and statistics underlying her assertions.

Lower LSAT scores are a product of decreased law school attendance. The 2014 entering class was nearly 30% smaller than in 2010, and was the smallest crop of new law students since 1973. As interest in studying law has fallen, in order to maintain comparable class sizes, many schools have reduced admissions standards.

Driving this exodus from legal education are the rather dismal economics of today’s legal industry. According to the National Association for Law Placement, from 2008 to 2013, the overall employment rate for recent graduates fell every single year. Numbers for 2014 graduates were slightly better, though in part due to a smaller graduating class.

What’s more, many of those who obtained jobs ended up in positions which didn’t even require passage of the bar exam, raising serious concerns about the value of law school. Additionally, some of those who were reported as employed were actually in temporary, unpaid positions, funded by stipends from their law schools.  

Far fewer recent graduates are working in private law firms, which tend to pay higher salaries, compared to their counterparts of decades past. Hiring of temporary contract attorneys has become quite common; most of these positions offer modest compensation and minimal job security. Many of today’s graduates are likely to face subpar employment prospects, while carrying high levels of student debt, for years to come.

These troubles aren’t just confined to those beginning their careers. Since 2008 (when the Great Recession began in earnest), incomes for partners at law firms (across all sizes) have dropped by 9%, adjusted for inflation, while the legal industry contracted by more than 50,000 jobs from 2008 to 2013. Large, storied national law firms have gone bankrupt, while revenue growth at many larger firms has been at best lackluster, despite a rebounding economy.Things were even worse for the quintessential everyman lawyer, the solo practitioner, whose earnings were reduced by more than 30%, adjusted for inflation, between 1988 to 2012.  

It is hardly shocking that so many who once might have considered law are now moving towards alternate career paths (although Steven Harper, author of The Lawyer Bubble, argues that enrollment hasn’t fallen enough relative to job availability). At the same time, law schools face large fixed overhead costs, especially in terms of paying the salaries and benefits of longtime tenured faculty.

Law school administrators thus face two choices. One approach is to maintain admissions standards, slashing class sizes thanks to fewer applicants. The other option is to lower acceptance requirements, and prop up student headcount, preserving overall tuition inflows, while delaying hard choices around downsizing and restructuring.

Many institutions have clearly selected the later approach. To some extent, those considering law school must hold themselves accountable, using the sort of data cited here to thoughtfully assess their bar passage and employment prospects. A competent attorney must be meticulous in his or her research. It’s not unreasonable to demand the same of those who hope to one day be lawyers.

Yet, that isn’t enough. While the concept of students as customers remains a subject of heated debate, it is inescapably true that individuals select law school from an array of viable career and educational paths, and in doing so, face opportunity costs. In terms of both personal impact and monetary costs, attending law school is much like making a major purchase (buying a home comes to mind). Basic consumer protections, ensuring transparency and accountability, ought to apply.

The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) offers a useful case study of the sort of approach which might work here. Initially passed in 1968, and expanded since, TILA requires lenders to offer detailed written disclosures prior to extending customer credit, including credit cards, auto, student, and mortgage loans. This information helps paints a clearer picture of the actual costs and responsibilities faced by borrowers, allowing them to make more wiser decisions in accepting loans.

While law school employment reports have become somewhat more accurate and representative over the past few years, more work is needed. Each institution should be required to provide prospective students with an electronic disclosure statement that lays out, in detail, bar passage rates and employment outcomes for graduates from each of the previous 5 years, encompassing the 12 months following a graduate’s completion of law school.

Included in this employment data should be the firm or agency size where a graduate obtained employment, his or her annual salary, and notations to indicate whether such employment was permanent, or on a contract basis. This information should be displayed in an interactive format, indexed with each graduate’s LSAT scores and law school grade point averages, to better explain how various individuals fared. Of course, disclosures must be implemented in a manner which protects individual privacy, which seems quite feasible.

Those considering law school must also review a snapshot of broader income and employment data for the legal profession as a whole, across geographic regions and practice areas. This paints a fuller picture of the road ahead. Each potential student will then be required to affirm that he or she has reviewed and understood all of this information, prior to committing to a particular school. Engaging in this exercise can help individuals reach more informed decisions as to whether studying law actually makes sense.

Having graduated from law school in 2010, I am quite familiar with the challenges that newer attorneys face in today’s legal landscape. Yet, I’ve also come to believe that there is real value in a legal education. In the right circumstances, the practice of law can be meaningful and fulfilling. Some observers, most notably Paul Campos of the University of Colorado Law School, and Jordan Weissman at Slate, have argued that in at least some cases, law school is still a worthwhile undertaking. I agree.

However, that is ultimately a decision for each individual to make. Since entering the legal profession is such a substantial commitment in terms of time, money, and effort, those who wish to become attorneys must be fully aware of what awaits them, and provided with the data to make a well-reasoned decision as to whether law school is indeed the right path. For a profession whose very existence is based on the deliverance of justice, this is the only fair thing to do.