Before we dig into it, a bit of background:  for the past several years, the Massachusetts Legislature  and Board of Higher Education have waged a tumultuous battle over whether the Commonwealth’s public university system should create a public law school by absorbing the private, unaccredited Southern New England School of Law and merging it into the University of Massachusetts’ nearby satellite campus in the town of Dartmouth.  The plan’s proponents noted that 44 states already had a public law school and promised to keep costs low enough so that the school would be reasonably affordable to its students without adding any cost burdens to an already-strapped state budget.  After several defeats, these proponents resurrected the plan in 2009 and won approval for the new institution, to be called the University of Massachusetts School of Law. (Sadly, my proposal to dub it “Dartmouth Law School,” gained no traction.)  The school, still unaccredited, began accepting students this spring for fall admission.

The author of the Globe article, Tracy Jan, compared data between the old private school and the new public one, and, citing a rise in applications for admission (from 201 to 462 ) and in average LSAT score for inbound students (from 141 to 146), pronounced the UMass Law off to a “strong start. ”

Jan continued on, noting that the school’s relative affordability makes it ideal for students who wish to pursue legal careers in public service fields since those fields traditionally do not pay well enough to accomodate the massive loan debt many law students graduate with.  Lower tuition equals lower postgraduate debt equals more freedom to pursue lower-paying work. Then she describes anectdotally the breadth of this fall’s incoming class, which apparently includes students as old as 59 as well as: “an MIT alumnus and son of Italian immigrants who is leaving the high-tech industry to pursue a law career to protect the rights of new immigrants,” ”a victim-witness advocate in the Bristol district attorney’s office,” and “an occupational safety professional who wants to ensure that workplace health and safety standards are enforced.”

To quote cranky18th century British philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, this article is ”nonsense on stilts.”  

We love lawyers.  We work with lawyers.  Many of us are lawyers.  We’re passionate about the future of the legal professsion and we live that future every day.

Jan’s entire argument is only focused on the front door:  a law school is fulfilling its purpose if its admissions policy and cost structure allow it to let in more students and different types of students than you might find at other law schools.  To the extent that any school does these two things, she feels it can be deemed “off to a strong start.” 

This is not the purpose of law school–or any graduate school for that matter–any more than the loading dock is the purpose of the factory.  The simple core purpose of any graduate school in any field is to (a) educate its students in such a manner that (b) prepares those students for successful careers in that field.   And here, UMass Law is destined to be a failure before it even begins.  Here’s why…

(a) Educating its students – The school is still unaccredited and cannot coherently claim that it will offer anything approaching an acceptible legal education until it becomes so.  It plans to seek that accreditation, which it describes as a “long-term goal,” over the next few years.  In the twenty-eight years that it existed as the Southern New England School of Law, it twice applied to the ABA for accreditation and was denied both times.  As a first rehabilitative step towards that accreditation, the fact that the “new” school made the “old” school’s professors re-apply for their jobs, and then re-hired all but one of them, is not likely a good sign of sweeping change.  According to the ABA’s former Accreditation Committee chair and that Committee’s lead consultant, it will likely take $90M-$102M to upgrade the school to the point where accreditation is feasible.  This means that UMass-Law will either have to break its promise to become accredited or its promise to not burden Massachusetts taxpayers. 

Whatever.  Let’s assume that somehow the school finds the money under a rock and pulls this off.  It still fails epically at…

(b) Preparing those students for successful careers in their chosen field.  Put simply, there are no careers to be successful at.  Okay…that’s a slight overstatement.  But only a slight one.  To say that there is presently a glut of law school graduates and a dearth of jobs for them would be a massive understatment.  Over the past 2-3 years, the legal industry has been shedding jobs at an unprecedented rate, and 2010 is shaping up at the worst year yet.  The National Association of Law Placement estimated that 2011 will be even worse, calling the market for future law school graduates “very compromised.”

Longer term, things are even more uncertain.  Most commentators forecast that technological and financial trends will force a contraction and overall re-shaping of how legal services are provisioned.  In his book, The End of Lawyers(?), Richard Susskind forecasts several general trends that will lower traditional attorney demand: in-sourcing, de-lawyering, relocating, off-shoring, outsourcing, subcontracting, co-sourcing , leasing, home-sourcing, open-sourcing , computerizing, no-sourcing.

[Check out Susskind's book for a deeper look at these trends.  Basically, they translate in aggregate to this:  the market for legal services will increasingly have less appetite for highly paid attorneys performing rote and repetitive tasks for which viable alternatives exist.  Attorney work will necessarily devolve to a more strategic core that focuses on consultative, high-end while process work is offloaded, automated, or eliminated. This will shrink the demand for the bottom end of the attorney market while transforming the industry.] 

So, as UMass-Law graduates begin to enter the job market in a few years, they will be fighting over fewer jobs with the graduates of the Commonwealth’s eight private law schools (Boston College, Boston University, Harvard, Massachusetts College of Law [unaccredited], New England School of Law, Northeastern, Suffolk, Western New England School of Law), as well as with the backlog of recent graduates who are still looking for legal work.  And those other graduates will likely be viewed by employers as more qualified.  UMass Law’s recent jump in median LSAT to 146 places it in the 29th percentile of all test takers.  The scores for the schools that UMass Law graduates will most directly compete with?  New England School of Law is at 152 (56th); Suffolk is at 157 (71st);  Northeastern at 161 (86th).  When you factor in that Massachusetts is already third among U.S. states in lawyers per-capita, it becomes very difficult to see where UMass Law graduates will find work. 

If you view, as the Globe article does, that schools exist to admit students broadly and not charge them too much, then you may well view the existence of UMass Law positively.  If, however, you think that maybe, just maybe, people go to graduate schools so that they might one day have jobs, that you’ll view this as the mistake that it really is.  And you might wonder why we weren’t launching a Computer Science school or an Institute for Clean Energy Technology.  You know, areas where the demand for graduates might exceed supply of graduates in the coming decades.

Don’t-take-credit-for-the-weather….One final note: the fact that the applications are rising  and that the school is therefore able to be slightly more selective should not be interpreted as signs of success.  Despite the headlines about law firms layoffs and serial deferrals of start dates for incoming first year associates, all of the Commonwealth’s private law schools reported increases in applications this year as well.  Nationwide, almost 20% more people took the LSAT last year than the year before.  This is what happens in a recession: people unable to find jobs retreat into school in the hopes that their prospects will be better in a few years.

When I began my summer internship at Brightleaf Corporation I had just survived the infamous 1L year of lawschool. I knew Rule 12(b)(6), res ipsa loquitor, and all of the other things 1Ls think make or break their careers.  But most importantly, I knew that the economy would pick up by the time I graduated and I would be fine. How did I know this? When I entered law school, they said that 94% of their graduating class had a job within 9 months. The world needed lawyers and I was going to be one. After all, I got good grades, made the National Trial Team and I was in a Clinic. I had big dreams of running down a Manhattan street in my power suit on my way to some major law firm where I would work my way up the ranks. There was no reason for me to worry, right? Wrong.

I came out of my internship with a completely different frame of mind. The idea that I would need skills that law school didn’t give me had never crossed my mind before then. Didn’t they want us to be prepared for our future careers? How had I never heard about the inefficiencies of law firms? How did I not know about the economics of firms?

In trying to answer these questions, one professor came to mind. My 1L Property professor had been the only one who had taken the time to talk to us about things we would need to know. In the “Last Ten Minutes” we would discuss a variety of issues, from interviewing to billable hours. So, I went back and picked his brain one more time.

He had spent years working for a big law firm down in D.C. While he was there, he suggested document automation to his firm and oversaw the implementation. Now, he teaches his Estates class how to use the system to quickly make documents from templates. So, I asked him why other classes or even law firms never discuss that? He responded with another question. What was your major in undergrad? I immediately saw where he was going with this and quietly mumbled “political science.” And there it was. Most lawyers do not have a background in science and are not as receptive to the use of technology as a result.

He also explained that this was the same basic reason as to why many law firms are not managed well. The skills we use as lawyers do not always translate to management skills. Does it really make sense that the lawyer with the most billable hours should end up running the firm? As much as it pains me to admit it, probably not.

Lawyers and law schools need to reevaluate what is important in today’s legal world. The advancements in technology and changing business models are lost on most of us. If we don’t make an attempt to catch up, we will fall hopelessly behind on the curve.