My colleague Kyle McEntee has a new project that you’ll want to check out. “I Am the Law” is a series of podcasts exploring a wide range of law practice jobs. These aren’t typical attorney interviews: the lawyers offer more detail about their practices than I’ve heard on other broadcasts or career panels.
The podcasts are rich in detail, but free for all listeners. Law students will find a wealth of information on practice areas, work settings, and the paths that individual attorneys followed in their careers. I hope that career services offices will recommend the podcasts to their students.
Prospective law students will also appreciate these podcasts. The discussions can take them well beyond the media stereotypes of BigLaw associates and aggressive courtroom lawyers. What’s it like to practice as a family or patent law attorney? How about real estate, immigration, nonprofit management, and transactional work? Can you believe that there is still room for a “writs attorney” in the twenty-first century? These 20-30 minute podcasts are perfect for listening while working out, riding the bus, or walking across campus.
I’m intrigued, finally, about the possibility of using these podcasts to complement doctrinal courses. I wish that when I taught first-year Torts, I could have asked my students to listen to the podcast with personal injury attorney Tricia Dennis. (Disclosure: I’m the host who interviewed Tricia, and I serve as an ongoing host for I Am the Law.) We forget how much of our law school curriculum focuses on appellate lawyering. Even when we ask students to imagine how they would apply a rule to a client’s problem, it’s hard for them to see the world through a practitioner’s eyes.
We should do much more in law school to help students understand their future roles as problem solvers for real people and organizations. But as we explore those avenues, the I Am the Law podcasts are an easy, cost-free way to give students a small taste of law practice related to the subject areas you teach.
Have a listen. I think you’ll be impressed, as I was, by the thoughtfulness of these lawyers in explaining both their current work and their personal paths in the law.
Lawrence Krieger and Kennon Sheldon recently posted an important paper about the factors associated with lawyer happiness. The paper includes a number of intriguing findings–I recommend it to all members of the legal profession. I focus here on a worrisome finding that Krieger and Sheldon discuss only briefly: The majority of lawyers, those who provide legal services to middle-income individuals, are the unhappiest.
These general practitioners, family lawyers, and others of their ilk are less satisfied than both those who work in prestige positions (serving primarily corporations) and those who work for the public interest (including government). Yet these “lawyers in the middle” make up the bulk of our profession–and are essential to address unmet legal needs. What are we going to about this?
Four Groups of Lawyers
To gather data for their study, Krieger and Sheldon surveyed bar members in four geographically diverse states. They divided the respondents into four groups:
Prestige lawyers are those who (a) work in law firms of 100 lawyers or more, or (b) practice tort/malpractice law; corporate, commercial, or transactional law; international business/commercial transactions; securities or partnership law; and tax, estate planning, or patent/copyright law. Krieger and Sheldon identified 1434 prestige lawyers in their sample.
Service lawyers work as public defenders, criminal prosecutors, other government lawyers, legal aid lawyers, or in-house counsel for a nonprofit organization. 1091 sample members fell in this category.
Judges include both judges and hearing officers. This group accounted for 141 sample members.
Other lawyers work in “general practice, family law, private criminal defense, and many [other areas] not typically associated with either very high earnings or primary public service.” This group constituted the largest slice of the sample, with 2852 members.
[Note that Krieger and Sheldon excluded “teachers, bar administrators, mediators/arbitrators, and clerks or support staff for judges or lawyers” from these groupings, so they could focus exclusively on more traditional practitioners. The “other” lawyers group, therefore, does not include attorneys in these positions.]
Who’s the Happiest?
Judges reported higher well-being than any other group studied by Krieger and Sheldon. Service lawyers were the next happiest, despite their low incomes. Prestige lawyers ranked third, and “other lawyers” brought up the rear.
Krieger and Sheldon focus on the difference between prestige and service lawyers: although the former earn more, the latter report greater well-being. To my mind, though, the more important result involves the “other” lawyers–those in general practice. These lawyers constitute the single greatest group of practicing lawyers; they also serve the needs for which Americans have the greatest unmet demand. Yet these are the unhappiest lawyers. This is a critical problem, one that legal education has ignored for too long.
The Invisible Majority
As I read Krieger and Sheldon’s very thoughtful study, I realized how much of our law school culture revolves around the prestige/service dichotomy. Both before and during law school, law students imagine that they will choose between high-paying prestige positions and modest-paying (but personally satisfying) service ones.
Our law school culture tacitly supports this dichotomy. Students quickly learn about the prestige positions and yearn for both their status and compensation. Prestige employers are well represented on campus, in the media, and in student gossip.
Schools counter the dominance of “prestige law” with talk of service careers. We sponsor public interest fellowships, job fairs, and other service programs. Faculty and career counselors encourage students to weigh the personal satisfactions of a service career against the monetary rewards of a “prestige” one.
At most law schools, however, a majority of graduates will work in neither of these fields: the dichotomy is a false one for them. Instead, they will become “other” lawyers serving the needs of small businesses and moderate-income individuals. The fact that service lawyers are happier, while prestige lawyers are wealthier, is irrelevant to them. They, according to Krieger and Sheldon’s study, will experience neither the high incomes of prestige lawyers nor the well-being of service ones.
Out of the Shadows
Is the plight of general-practice lawyers inevitable? I don’t know. Some of them manage very stressful work for clients of modest means. Family law tops that list; many lawyers shudder at the prospect of handling divorce or child custody cases, although courthouses teem with people seeking lawyers to represent them in those matters.
It may not be possible to give these “other” lawyers the high salaries of prestige lawyers or the civic satisfaction of service ones. But we might improve their well-being by recognizing the importance of their work. Rather than relegating them to the shadows of “other” lawyers, as law schools currently do, let’s celebrate the work of these every day lawyers.
Many of our graduates will handle divorce and child custody cases. They will represent criminal defendants for pay. They will handle small personal injury and commercial disputes. None of this is glamorous; much of it is stressful and modestly paid. But this is what lawyers do. This is what brings justice to most Americans.
Let’s embrace this legal work in our law school curricula. Let’s feature it in our placement programs. Let’s help our “other” graduates find satisfaction in their practices. I know some general practitioners who find substantial psychic rewards in their work. Although we don’t recognize them as “public service” lawyers, they are the professionals who help people through the traumatic days of a divorce, criminal charge, custody dispute, or probate contest.
We can do more to prepare these lawyers, celebrate their work, support their well-being, and offer their services to more of the clients who need them.
My husband and I recently signed a contract to purchase a new house. As we arrange inspections (fingers crossed) and interview movers, I’ve been reflecting on the changing role of lawyers in residential real estate purchases. During my three decades as a homeowner, that role has steadily diminished. Here’s my tale of three transactions over three decades.
House One: The Customized Contract
We bought our first home in 1984, using a custom-crafted contract. Our contract, in fact, was about as customized as they come. As recent law graduates, with parent lawyers urging us on, my husband and I delighted in drafting our dream contract.
We loved our contract, but the sellers’ lawyer was dismayed. He had quoted the sellers a flat fee, assuming he could use his own preferred contract. Our diligence (or hubris) required him to devote extra hours to merging our work product with his. He probably lost money on the representation; I doubt that the sellers were interested in such a custom-tailored contract. Still, this was an era in which many lawyers proudly drafted their own contracts, then negotiated with opposing counsel about which language to use.
House Two: The Standardized Contract
By 1995, when we bought our second home, my husband and I had lost our appetite for contract drafting. Other buyers felt the same; standard contracts were common. We hired a lawyer to represent us, but paid a very modest fee for the representation. With a standard contract, there was relatively little for the lawyer to do. She reviewed the property survey and attended the closing on our behalf, but we didn’t need any customized legal advice.
House Three: No Lawyer Needed?
When we bid on a house last week, our realtor gave us a form contract developed by the local bar association. My husband and I were impressed with the document: it covers all essential points and strikes a fair balance between buyer and seller. Having a form contract allowed us to focus on key points of the offer, rather than worrying about drafting language.
After striking a deal with this well-worded contract, my husband and I wondered whether we needed to hire a lawyer at all. The realtors, title company, and bank all seem to have everything in hand. We asked a trusted friend–another lawyer–whether she thought we needed a lawyer to protect our interests. She responded that, especially if a bank participates in the transaction, she didn’t think either buyer or seller needs a personal lawyer these days. Her own daughter (a scientist, rather than lawyer) recently purchased a house without retaining a lawyer.
Lessons for Lawyers
Our experience as home buyers traces the path described by Richard Susskind in his widely read book, The End of Lawyers?. Thirty years ago, we (acting as our own lawyers) produced a customized contract to purchase a home. By 1995, the legal services supporting a home purchase were standardized: we paid a lawyer a set fee to perform prescribed tasks in connection with a standard contract.
Today, the same service has become a commodity: excellent form contracts are available without even consulting a lawyer. Other workers–realtors, bankers, and title agents–implement the process without ongoing guidance from a lawyer. It seems that in a growing number of transactions, neither buyer nor seller will hire a lawyer. Lawyers will continue to represent banks, advise title companies, and refine the standard contract, but those tasks will employ far fewer lawyers than old-fashioned real estate sales did. It’s not the end of lawyers, but it’s certainly a contraction of the market.
Law as a Reasonably Priced Luxury Good?
My story has a final twist: Although we probably don’t need a lawyer to represent us in this home purchase, my husband and I decided to hire one. More than thirty years out of law school, we know just enough to be dangerous. Neither of us specialize in real estate transactions or any related area. Rather than torment ourselves by reviewing all of the documents (which we know we’ll do), we decided to hire a real estate lawyer to do that work for us.
We’re delighted with that decision. Our lawyer is bright, hardworking, and knowledgeable. He responds quickly to email or phone requests. So far he has recommended a reputable home inspector, reviewed the title documents, caught several errors in those documents (including an arithmetic one), found a record related to our title, and answered all of our rather naive questions. We’re relieved to rely upon him rather than realtors and google searches.
I’m acutely aware, however, that we’re purchasing these legal services as a type of luxury good. The cost is reasonable–less than $1,000–but that’s more than many buyers would pay for this type of comfort. Even buyers who could afford the tab might purchase a different discretionary good. We like legal services, but I suspect many buyers would prefer a new widescreen tv, season tickets for their favorite sports team, or other indulgences.
The bottom line for residential real estate lawyers is sobering. Many buyers and sellers no longer need these services; they will rely upon form contracts and other professionals. Clients like us may still purchase services, but that market is small. To attract those niche clients, prices will have to be reasonable and service will have to be very client-focused. Otherwise, potential clients will spend their money on different discretionary goods.
Dean Erwin Chemerinsky wants Justice Ginsburg to retire this summer, giving President Obama ample time to confirm her successor. Chemerinksy worries that a Republican will win the White House in 2016 and that Ginsburg’s health will not endure until the next Democratic administration. To avoid the risk of a Republican President replacing Ginsburg, Chemerinsky urges the Justice to resign soon.
In making this recommendation, Chemerinsky assumes that Ginsburg is responsible for preserving her liberal voice on the Court; she should plan her resignation in a way that maximizes prospects for a liberal replacement. But that’s not Ginsburg’s job–it’s a job for liberal voters.
I count myself as a liberal, and a long-time Ginsburg fan. I had the honor of learning constitutional law from then Professor Ginsburg at Columbia Law School, and of clerking for her on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. No one was happier than I was when President Clinton nominated her to the Supreme Court.
If liberals want to repeat that experience, seeing more nominations by Democratic Presidents, then we need to elect a Democratic President in 2016. To ease the future President’s task, we should also elect a Democratic Senate majority. It’s just that simple.
In 2000, another few hundred Democratic votes would have given the Presidency to Gore. Bush won more decisively in 2004, but the election was still very close: President Bush secured the electoral college by a single state, Ohio. In the popular vote, he prevailed by a smaller margin than any incumbent reelected since 1828.
Obama, on the other hand, is the first President since Eisenhower to claim at least 51% of the popular vote in two different elections. Even in 2012’s “close” contest, Obama’s margin of victory was larger than Bush’s 2004 win over Kerry.
I don’t mean to suggest that the Democrats have an easy shot at the White House in 2016. On the contrary. Polls show that American voters divide closely between Republicans and Democrats, with a substantial number of citizens alienated from both parties. In that context, any national election is up for grabs.
This means that people who want a Democrat to fill any upcoming Supreme Court vacancies have to work for that goal. I’ve leafleted, poll watched, registered voters, or contributed dollars in most presidential elections. In 2008 and 2012, many of us in Ohio hosted out-of-state Obama campaigners in our homes. That’s what it takes to win elections.
I write from the perspective of a liberal, but the same advice holds for conservatives. Voters who want a Republican President to fill any upcoming Court vacancies can–and should–work hard to elect their nominee.
Public fretting about the timing of Ginsburg’s retirement is much less productive. It’s oddly professorial, in fact, to publicly admonish a Justice. Why not address the electorate instead? Tell them how important it will be to protect Justice Ginsburg’s legacy.
Justice Ginsburg has a weighty job, carrying out her duties at the Court. We, as voters and citizens, have an equally important job–electing the President and Senators who will carry out our wishes. Let’s let Justice Ginsburg do her job, while we do ours.
Back in the fall of 2012, I suggested that law schools could help students–and attract new applicants–by offering students a master’s degree at the end of the first year. That degree would allow students to try law school, and to gain the significant skills learned during the first year, without committing to a full three years of legal education. Students who decided at the end of the first year that they disliked law, that the benefits of practice were unlikely to outweigh the further costs of law school, or that they could pursue an attractive job with just one year of legal education, would be able to leave law school with appropriate recognition for their work.
I wasn’t the only person to propose this option. A faculty member at the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law had a similar idea. And this week, Cleveland-Marshall announced its “risk-free” JD program. The initiative will allow JD students to convert their first-year credits to a Master of Legal Studies degree if they opt to leave school at the end of the first year. Here’s why the program makes sense.
Reducing Risk
Law school is a risky degree program compared to other graduate degrees: It requires three years of full-time study at high tuition. Potential law students worry that they won’t like legal study, that they won’t do well in law school, and that they won’t find a satisfying job after graduation. The combination of risks has driven students away from law school.
There’s no way to eliminate all of those risks; offering a master’s degree after the first year, however, significantly reduces them. Students who dislike legal study, or who don’t do as well as they hoped, can leave school with a one-year degree instead of a failed investment. That option makes the three-year JD more attractive to students who aren’t certain about their commitment to law.
Exploring Options
No one knows whether students who have completed just a year of law school, and who sport a new Master of Legal Studies degree, will be attractive to employers. But no one knows how attractive other MLS programs, offered independently of JD enrollment, will be to employers either. In creating both types of degree tracks, law schools are betting that graduates will be able to apply one year of legal training to JD-advantage work like human resources or compliance. Alternatively, they hope that the critical thinking taught during the 1L year will enhance a college graduate’s workplace appeal.
Even though we lack data on these job prospects, the predictions of employability are plausible. Faculty, students, and alumni have long touted the transformative training of the 1L year. Students make significant progress in learning how to “think like a lawyer” during that first year. If those analytic skills are valuable, then they should enhance employability.
Equally important, degrees like the Cleveland-Marshall one will help us assess the workplace pay-off for one year of legal study. The MLS option does little, if any, harm to students. It may persuade some students to pay for a year of law school, when they might otherwise have pursued other options. The investment, however, is limited–and includes both a year of professional education and a useful option to continue toward the JD. My bet is that employers will value the MLS; as they respond, we will learn more about the value of different types of law-related degrees.
Today’s National Law Journal has an interesting story about the federal government’s cuts to contracts with private lawyers. The story interested me for three reasons.
Who Knew?
First, I never realized that the federal government spent so much to purchase private legal services. In 2013, the feds spent more than half a billion dollars on outside legal services, with the money flowing to more than 1900 private contractors. That’s a small fraction of the total market for legal services, but it’s more than pocket change. I hadn’t realized that, in addition to hiring its own lawyers, the federal government spends significant money to hire private lawyers.
Shrinking Pie
Unfortunately, the feds–like so many other legal clients–are spending less for their outside legal services. In 2009, the federal government disbursed more than $682 million for legal services. The total climbed in 2010 to more than $714 million, but has fallen steadily since that peak. For 2013, the total was just over $542 million–a 24% decline. This is the second point that struck me: our graduates face, not only decreased hiring by federal agencies, but less outside spending by those agencies. This is a federal “counter-stimulus” to the legal market.
Lawyers Make Up a Small Part of Legal Services
Perhaps most daunting, government dollars for “legal services” go primarily to contractors that provide law-related services, not to law firms or individual lawyers. Of the $542 million that the government spent in 2013, only $54 million went to law firms or solo practitioners. More than 90% of the money spent on outside legal services went to “legal service” providers that assisted with asset forfeiture, e-discovery, and other law-related tasks.
Those companies undoubtedly employ some lawyers. The composition of services purchased by the federal government, however, is yet another reminder that a growing number of non-lawyers provide law-related services. I have no problem with that shift; three years of formal legal education are not necessary to perform many tasks related to interpretation, application, and enforcement of the law. The government’s contracting figures, however, are yet another reminder of that reality. This is the third, and perhaps most important, lesson we can draw from the National Law Journal‘s report.
Law students quickly learn the hierarchies that govern the legal profession. Top employers, especially in BigLaw, prefer students from elite law schools. High class rank, law review membership, previous work experience, and personal connections matter, but the status of a student’s degree sends a strong workplace signal.
We deplore this fact in academia, and many employers rue the practice as well. Over time, employers have learned that graduates of the elite schools aren’t necessarily the best lawyers. Still, the preference continues. Just as no one ever got fired for buying IBM, no one will lose face for hiring graduates of Harvard, Yale, or Stanford law schools.
But now one BigLaw firm has decided to fight back–against its own biases. Clifford Chance, a global law firm headquartered in London, has devised three novel hiring practices. All three techniques aim to widen the firm’s talent pool by reducing its dependence on lawyers trained at Oxford, Cambridge, and other elite institutions. The Clifford Chance innovations are smart hiring practices: perhaps we can persuade U.S. firms and other legal employers to follow them.
Credit for All Work Experience
Clifford Chance has started explicitly scoring candidates’ work experience. That experience includes law-related work, as well as positions “working full-time in retail to cover the cost of tuition fees.” The firm has not released details on how it counts the latter positions, but it is promising that recruiters explicitly focus on this work. Rather than gloss over the assorted jobs that low-income students perform to pay their way through school, the firm will acknowledge the necessity of this work–and perhaps even recognize some of the skills learned through tuition-supporting jobs.
CV-Blind Final Interviews
Even more intriguing, Clifford Chance has adopted a system of CV-blind final interviews. Staff members conducting these interviews don’t know which law school each candidate attended; they know only the candidate’s name.
The firm hopes that this approach will eliminate unconscious attitudes that might bias interviewers in favor of applicants from elite schools. Rather than assume that an Oxford graduate is more sophisticated, articulate, or intelligent than one from a lesser school, the interviewers judge the candidates based on their words and manner.
The CV-blind approach reduces the halo effect created by elite school attendance. Employers can weigh the substance of an applicant’s academic record (including the nature of the school attended) during screening stages of the employment process. There is no compelling reason for interviewers to know the applicant’s school when judging the interpersonal skills displayed during an interview.
Eliminating academic pedigree from final interviews does have one drawback: It reduces the opportunity for firms to recruit candidates based on common bonds. Interviewers will no longer be able to reminisce with candidates about favored (or dreaded) professors and classes. Candidates may come away from these interviews feeling a less personal connection to the prospective employer.
These very connections, however, give elite-school graduates yet another advantage in the hiring process. If a firm has hired primarily elite-school graduates, students from lesser schools will feel less connection with their interviewers. Those students, in fact, may feel more comfortable in interviews where no one’s alma mater plays a role.
Intelligent Aid
Clifford Chance’s most ambitious program is its Intelligent Aid competition. Each year the firm fills twenty of its summer slots with students chosen through this process. The students submit a 500-word essay on a designated topic, then defend their ideas orally before a panel of judges. The twenty best competitors obtain summer jobs; the top competitor also receives a £5,000 scholarship and £1,000 to give a favorite charity.
Intelligent Aid has become a major pipeline for students aspiring to work at Clifford Chance; the competition fills half of all openings in the firm’s summer program.
Outcomes
Clifford Chance’s innovations seem to be working. Last year the firm hired lawyers from forty-one different schools. That number represents almost a thirty percent increase from the number of schools represented the previous year.
The firm has also succeeded in attracting more first-generation students to its ranks. The Intelligent Aid program yielded one-third more of those students than the traditional hiring route did.
Clifford Chance is betting that its innovations will yield a better group of lawyers than conventional hiring practices have done. The firm isn’t running a charity for students enrolled at non-elite universities; it’s seeking the best possible workers. So far, the results suggest that it’s both possible and productive to combat elitism in hiring.
I wrote recently about the discouraging labor market projections published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. BLS has–once again–lowered its estimate of the number of new lawyers that the U.S. economy will absorb over the next decade.
Why is BLS so bearish about job prospects for lawyers? The agency devotes an issue of its flagship publication, the Monthly Labor Review to the methodology and trends that underlie its workplace projections. Here are some of the forces that are restraining job growth for lawyers.
The Great Recession
The BLS economists open by noting that the “length and nature of the recession have left lasting scars on the economy.” Recovery has taken longer than even pessimists predicted: Although the Great Recession ended more than four years ago, growth in GDP remains slow.
Unfortunately, BLS predicts that “growth will continue to be slower than was originally hoped.” Robust growth often follows a downturn, but the last recession contributed to a “new normal” in which GDP will grow only about 2.6% per year. That’s better than growth rates during the last few years, which have witnessed growth of only 2.1% annually, but it falls well below earlier growth rates. Between 1992 and 2002, GDP grew 3.4% annually. BLS does not expect that type of growth to return any time during the next decade.
The effects of the Great Recession, in other words, have become structural rather than simply cyclical. This was not an ordinary downturn with a robust rebound. The impacts are lasting. They will dissipate some day, for law as well as other occupations, but that “some day” is still more than a decade in the future.
Decreased Labor Force Participation
The shock of the Great Recession distracted many of us from an economic malaise that has been building quietly over the last twelve years: a declining percentage of our adult population is participating in the workforce. To determine labor force participation, BLS calculates the number of adults (age 16 or older) who are employed or looking for work. That number, divided by the total number of non-institutionalized civilians, yields the labor force participation rate.
In 1947, when BLS started tracking this economic indicator, 58.3% of the adult population was in the workforce. That percentage rose and fell modestly over the next two decades. After 1970, as both women and baby boomers entered the workforce, the participation rate rose steadily–reaching a high of 67.1% that persisted from 1997-2001.
Since 2001, however, labor force participation has been falling noticeably. By 2012, the percentage had dropped to 63.7%, a participation rate that was last recorded in 1979. BLS projects that the rate will continue to fall over the next decade, reaching 61.6% by 2022.
A decline in labor force participation might seem like good news for job seekers: fewer participants means less competition for existing jobs. The negative effects of decreased labor force participation, however, far outweigh any benefits. Declining workforce participation has at least three negative effects:
1. Fewer workers means less productivity. GDP will grow slowly over the next decade partly because of our decreased labor force participation.
2. Declining workforce participation also means fewer people with income to spend on goods and services. Households with a single worker have less disposable income than households with two or more workers.
3. The declining labor force participation rate, finally, means that each worker will support more non-workers. Workers won’t be purchasing goods and services just for themselves; they’ll also be paying both taxes and private money to support the elderly, children, and others who cannot work. In 2012, our economic dependency ratio was 102: For every 100 people in the workforce, there were 102 people supported by the workers. That ratio will climb over the next decade, reaching 106.5 by 2022.
This ratio, notably, is far from the highest one that our population has supported. In 1975, when women still faced employment roadblocks and most baby boomers were still in school, our economic dependency ratio was 126. That ratio, however, steadily decreased during the late twentieth century, falling as low as 91.7 in 1992. Decreasing dependency fostered growth during the late twentieth century; now the trend has reversed.
The Bottom Line
BLS predicts that the long-term effects of the Great Recession, combined with our changing demographics, will impose significant restraints on the economy. Consumers will have less money to spend on goods and services, especially on those that are discretionary.
Lawyers and legal educators tend to think of legal services as essential rather than discretionary, but consumers clearly think otherwise. That is particularly true for middle-class individuals, a group that many law schools and recent graduates hope to attract as new clients.
Historically, middle-income consumers have been reluctant to pay going rates for legal services. Technology and more efficient practice management may now allow us to deliver services at lower rates to these consumers; that’s a noble goal that we should pursue as aggressively as possible. This prospective client base, however, is a moving target. With slow economic growth and more dependents to support, these individuals will have even less money to spend on legal services than they did in earlier decades. We will have to make legal services very efficient and very economical to attract considerable business.
We also have to be realistic about the fact that consumers choose among goods and services. Even the largest corporate clients have budgets; they prefer to spend their profits on executive compensation, developing new products, and opening new markets than on legal bills. For small businesses and individuals, budgets are even tighter. People will almost always buy food, shelter, and health care before they purchase legal services. Many of them may also prefer iPhones, internet connections, and football tickets above legal advice. The BLS projections incorporate, not what people would buy in an ideal world, but the mix of goods and services they are likely to purchase under projected economic conditions.
The constraints sketched here don’t touch on the special factors that are reducing demand for legal services. Those include technology, increasing competition in a profession that once benefited from substantial economic protection, and new management practices. Those structural changes are affecting our industry in particular ways. Meanwhile, we face the same structural changes (lasting impact of the Great Recession and changing demographics) that affect the economy as a whole. This is an era of slower growth and increased dependency–both significant dampers on the economy.
Hildebrandt Consulting and Citi Private Bank have just released their 2014 Client Advisory for law firms. The annual Advisory, which draws upon surveys of law firms and interviews with managing partners, focuses primarily on BigLaw (although some smaller firms respond to the survey). The Advisory also relies upon self reports from firms, rather than independently collected data, which can decrease accuracy. Still, the Advisory offers a useful perspective on key trends in law practice. I summarize below the highlights with greatest importance for legal educators.
The Past Is Past
Very few people, I think, still believe that law practice will soon return to the heady days of 2002-2007. For those who do, Hildebrandt and Citi Private Bank offer yet another rebuttal: “we do not project a return to pre-2008 levels of performance,” the Advisory announces on its first page. “We believe that we have witnessed a fundamental shift in the market for legal services, resulting in a changed and more muted demand environment for law firms.”
Later, the report offers concrete figures. Demand for law firm services grew 4.4% annually between 2002 and 2007, then dropped sharply from 2007 through 2009. For the last four years, demand has been flat. Going forward, Hildebrandt and Citi Private Bank predict “much more modest growth” than before 2008. Demand will grow over the coming years, but quite slowly.
For law schools, these predictions offer further confirmation that we can’t expect BigLaw hiring to rebound to pre-recession levels. Conditions at those firms have improved since the dark days of 2009 and 2010, but associate hiring is unlikely to grow beyond where it stands today. In addition to offering fewer plum positions to our graduates, this BigLaw contraction will continue to create cascade effects in the market as more graduates seek positions in government, public interest, or smaller firms.
The Present: Lower Cost Lawyers
Since the recession, law firms have greatly increased their use of contract lawyers, staff attorneys, and outsourcing companies. This year’s Advisory devotes considerable attention to that trend, noting the rise of “lower cost lawyers” at most firms. 82% of the law firm managers who responded to the Citi survey acknowledged that they use temporary or contract lawyers to support their work. 70% acknowledged that they hire lower cost, non-partner track lawyers at their firm. Hildebrandt and Citi recognize these practices “as a permanent shift in the legal staffing model.”
Notably, the Advisory offers insight into the trends that have made this shift possible. Technology allows senior lawyers to supervise temporary and contract workers more easily; software also supports quicker training of those lawyers. Project management skills have become more common in law firms; those skills allow lawyers to organize large teams of temporary workers more readily. Excess capacity in the labor market, finally, provides a steady stream of lawyers willing to work in temporary or lower paid positions.
Law firms are not the only organizations hiring lawyers at lower wages. Hildebrandt and Citi point out that corporate clients are pursuing the same path on their own. Some corporations are hiring more in-house lawyers than they did in the past, realizing that they can pay those lawyers less than they would pay law firms for the same services. Corporate clients are also sending some of their routine legal work to alternative providers, bypassing law firms entirely.
The Future: Sunshine and Shadows
The Advisory concludes on an optimistic note. Its authors believe that the US economy has stabilized and “the economic outlook in 2014 has improved from the past few years.” Conditions abroad are also improving. As a result, Hildebrandt and Citi predict that “law firm profits will grow around 5 percent in 2014.”
This brighter outlook, however, casts shadows that will capture many of our graduates. Those profits depend largely on “a laser focus on efficiencies.” Firms, in other words, will continue to use contract workers, lower paid staff attorneys, and outsourcing firms. These practices have become essential to support partner profits. At the same time, firms are tightly controlling the number of equity partners and starting to prune income partners from their ranks.
These trends mean that our graduates will continue to settle for more temporary, lower paid work than they did before 2008. They may also enjoy fewer opportunities to become income or equity partners. Jobs in law firms and elsewhere will still exist, and some of these positions may compare favorably to other opportunities for college graduates. The jobs, however, will be different than the ones we are accustomed to imagining for our students.
Cafe Manager & Co-Moderator
Deborah J. Merritt
Cafe Designer & Co-Moderator
Kyle McEntee
Law School Cafe is a resource for anyone interested in changes in legal education and the legal profession.
Have something you think our audience would like to hear about? Interested in writing one or more guest posts? Send an email to the cafe manager at merritt52@gmail.com. We are interested in publishing posts from practitioners, students, faculty, and industry professionals.