Innovate for What?

January 3rd, 2013 / By Deborah J. Merritt

Why are students, alumni, and practitioners pressing law schools to change? Why are schools considering innovation? As we talk about change, we need to focus on the problems we’re trying to solve. Here are the major problems that I believe face legal education. In this post, I don’t attempt to substantiate the problems; plenty has been written elsewhere on these issues and we can talk about them more as the discussion unfolds. For now, I want simply to identify the problems that may drive proposals submitted to this site.

(1) The cost of attending a full-time JD program is too high for most students. “Too high” means both that some students are discouraged from attendance and that others find the return on their investment too low.

(2) Law schools are graduating many more JDs than traditional law practice can absorb. That has been true for at least the last four years, and expert predictions suggest that the surplus will continue.

(3) JD graduates are not trained in the ways that today’s marketplace demands. There are a variety of ways to address that problem: Schools could change, employers could change, or some other magic could occur. But the misfit seems clear.

(4) An increasing number of non-lawyers use legal principles quite effectively. Law schools have ignored this trend, which contributes to problem (2) and raises a separate question about schools’ educational mission. Should law schools attempt to educate this broader pool of workers? Addressing the overlap between law practice and law-related fields would also help schools understand the role of “JD Advantage” jobs for law graduates.

(5) A large number of citizens continue to lack basic legal services–but we cannot address that need by continuing to produce conventionally (and expensively) trained JDs who practice in customized (and expensive) ways. New technologies and management techniques now support cheaper delivery of high-quality legal services, but law schools don’t educate students to practice with those tools. Nor do most schools play an active role in exploring new means of delivering legal services.

(6) Law schools are not providing honest, thoughtful information to prospective students. Despite recent gains in transparency, schools are still inclined to market to consumers rather than engage future professionals. This distorts decisionmaking among prospective students and sets a tone for sharp practices rather than professionalism among lawyers.

(7) The federal loan system seriously distorts the market for legal education. Schools didn’t create the system, but they can work to reform it in ways that benefit students, prospective clients, and taxpayers. As professionals, schools have an obligation to respect those interests.

I welcome your reactions to these problems, as well as additions to the list.