|
Law in Contemporary Society
|
|
Inequality and the Law Student-- By EdiRumano - 23 May 2012 One of the questions asked at the outset of this course was how to be a lawyer that is responsive to the conditions of the actual near future. While part of the response to that question involves using technologies of collaboration that are responsive to the needs of your clients, it seems to me that to answer that question properly we have to examine one of the biggest changes in the social and economic landscape: the incredible and increasing inequality of the United States. The evidence for historic inequality is overwhelming; income and wealth inequality is substantial and more unequal than at any time since the Gilded Age. Class mobility in America is also at a low point, and is lower than most European countries. While aggregate statistics are helpful enough, this paper is about what this inequality means for us as students and as future attorneys. It would be difficult to talk about inequality as a student without talking about the role of admissions to elite colleges and grad schools. For many upper-middle-class children, life before and during high school consists of activities primarily designed to increase admissions odds at the top universities. During college, many of us chose classes and extra-curriculars we believed would look good to graduate admissions committees. It’s not a stretch to say that for most of us, for many years our lives have been aimed at doing the “right” things to get in to colleges, to grad schools, and jobs. So it’s no surprise that once we arrived at the next step, our sights were aimed at getting a foothold on a step “higher,” whether that’s BigLaw, a clerkship, or Law Review. What does a lifetime of admissions hoops have to do with inequality? Actually, a lot. With the increase in inequality has come a commensurate increase in status anxiety. Changes in information technology and the access to foreign labor pools have hollowed out traditionally middle-class jobs while leaving low-paying, supposedly unskilled work, and high-paying, education-intensive work. Parents realized this before economists, and elite colleges have seen an explosion in applicants over the last twenty years. The effects of attending elite colleges and grad schools are real. Undergraduate school prestige is the primary criterion used for hiring in elite finance and consulting firms, for access to the positions in the industries that drive the increasing wealth gap at the top. In the legal field, the emphasis on school pedigree is even more pronounced. Access to the top firms, clerkships, government positions, and academic positions is determined first by the school you attend, and second by your grades. Differences in school rankings are obsessed over by applicants, and with good reason. The differences in “exit options” are real. This is the situation in which the contemporary Columbia law student finds him or herself. For me, and I suspect for many of my classmates, the warnings against being meat in a can came as entirely unconvincing. We’ve been trying to fit into one can or another for the last decade, each time for the opportunity to fit into a better can, whatever that may be. Part of the desire to continually conform and refit ourselves in an attractive admissions package stems from our ego, in order to be special and unique in some way, but a large part also stems from our anxiety. We know the reality of the job market for college graduates, and the precariousness of at-will employment, and we feel that we have to run just to stay in place. We’re aware of the hours and dullness of high-paying corporate firm work, but we feel that it’s the only way to have financial security. The reality, as we’ve explored throughout the course, is that we’re wrong on both counts. Not only is high-paying corporate work not the only way to achieve financial security while practicing the kind of law that you find fulfilling, it’s not sustainable. The pyramid scheme consisting of hoards of associates billing doc-review while a few partners collect the profits is crumbling, and the successful attorney in the 21st century will need to be substantially more entrepreneurial. Competition to the coveted traditional career routes will become even more intense as the market restructures. Meanwhile, the law school curriculum hardly changes and we graduate unequipped to deal with the new realities. In order to become lawyers that are responsive to the conditions of the actual near future, we need to recognize that the abilities that brought us to this point aren’t the ones we will need to be successful in the future. While we’re supremely adapt at doing well in classes and joining the right clubs, we’re not so good at finding clients, or at fulfilling legal needs that aren’t posted explicitly on Symplicity. The actual near future involves a small subset of people becoming wealthy while the rest stagnate. One route to success is to play into their game, get in the hamster wheel, and spin furiously while attaining the coveted credentials that will allow you to serve the needs of wealthy individuals and corporations at the expense of your health and happiness. The other route involves using your skills to build a practice that you control. In truth, I’m afraid to get off the hamster wheel. But awareness that I’m making a decision, instead of the delusion that I was forced, is a first step. (I’d like to continue to edit this paper throughout the summer. Thank you)You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
|
|
