American law schools may be the biggest swindlers in higher education. Currently, there are 199 ABA approved law schools in this country, most of which charge outrageously high tuition rates with the false promise that their graduates will be able to be “lawyers” - that is, that their graduates will be wealthy. Columbia Law School, and other top law schools, stand out from the crowd, supposedly because their promises are not empty – if you attend one of these schools, the common wisdom goes, you can, and probably will, be rich. However, although we are all students who attend one of these prodigious institutions of higher learning, we all seem to be at least somewhat discontent with our prospects as professionals in the future. For those who do feel they are being swindled despite promises of potential wealth and stability, there has been little discussion regarding what can be done to change things for the better. And such a discussion is necessary, as it is clear that individual action alone never will be sufficient to bring meaningful change to the system. Many of the problems in the legal profession could be solved, or at least significantly improved, if lawyers were able to change the educational system so that they would not only feel more prepared and competent as future lawyers, but also create a greater impression of competence among those not in the legal profession.

In class we have already established the fundamental flaws in the two most apparent career choices presented to us by law schools. On the one hand, one could choose to go down the big law path, leading to financial stability but potentially meaningless work and the “pawning” of one's license to practice law. On the other hand, one could choose to work in “public interest” law, where the pay is less but the work is theoretically more rewarding. What compels law students to generally choose only from these two paths is the amount of debt that they incur by choosing to attend law school. Indeed, it seems that there is no choice but to either take the huge salary or to throw yourself at the mercy of Columbia's LRAP, which, according to Professor Moglen, is an essentially empty promise made by Columbia that requires students to sacrifice their own financial comfort for dubious debt relief assistance.

The easy solution would be for law schools to charge more reasonable tuition. This would certainly make it easier to say no to big law salaries. However, I don't think that this is a sufficient solution, nor is it even a necessary part of the solution. I think that the problem lies with the sort of people that law schools produce. Because law school is supposedly a professional school meant to train lawyers, perhaps we could learn something from another professional school – medical school.

The fundamental problem with law school and with earning a J.D. is that holding the degree by itself does not indicate to anybody that you are capable of actually practicing law. Clients hiring big law firms are insistent on having partners and upper-level associates do their work, and with good reason – law school does not provide any real practical training. Contrast this to medical school – patients do not only trust new graduates with their lives, but they will sometimes so trust even medical students during their residencies. The reason for the difference is apparent – medical school takes education much more seriously than law school. Practical skills are emphasized and the educational process is given the time and seriousness that it deserves. Law schools, on the other hand, have contented themselves with becoming big law associate factories, and, as we have established in class, big law associates do not actually practice law.

If law school, like medical school, could gain a reputation for training individuals who were competent on graduation day, there would be a fundamental paradigm shift in all areas of the law. Big law firms might continue to exist, but they could no longer exist as they do today. If law schools could gain a reputation for training trustworthy, knowledgeable and able lawyers, then clients of big firms would no longer be distrusting of their work being assigned to first year associates. Suddenly, partners would lose the immense leverage they currently have over first year associates, a leverage which is founded on the fact that associates are essentially useless to the firm and know it, but still want large salaries. The uselessness of associates combined with their desire for money has been partners' justification for forcing associates to spend outrageous amounts of time working on essentially meaningless projects. With this leverage removed, partners could no longer force associates to “pawn” their licenses to practice law and would have to change their entire business design.

For those students who have no intention to work for big firms, the benefits of a more practical legal education are even more apparent. If law school provided practical training, then students would not feel compelled to work for institutions that they find distasteful in attempt to obtain the practical training they so desperately need after three years of useless academic wankery. If law school could adjust itself to train confident lawyers, such further education would be needless.

It is of course difficult to say how these changes could be brought about or implemented given the stubbornness of the system and the willingness of most to accept the status quo. However, the current economic crisis might expedite or even force such a change to occur. Surely law schools will no longer be able to swindle students if they can no longer offer lucrative firm jobs upon graduation. Instead, they might have to offer their students a different promise – the promise that attending law school is more than just jumping through hoops on the way to the rat race, the promise that, with the requisite effort and will, one can be a competent professional at the end of their education.

-- JustinPurtle - 27 Feb 2009