ANOTHER LAW SCHOOL DEAN MISSES THE TARGET

Today’s chapter in the continuing story of proposals to reform legal education comes from James L. Huffman, emeritus dean at Lewis & Clark Law School. His February 20 Wall Street Journal op-ed recommends eliminating ABA law school accreditation requirements. Maybe that’s a good idea, but not for the reasons that Huffman offers.

Mischaracterizing the crisis

Huffman notes that the sharp decline in the number of law school applicants has created “a true crisis, and law schools are scrambling to figure out how to manage with fewer tuition-paying students.” He proposes to end that crisis by helping marginal law schools devise a way to remain in business. Specifically, he thinks that removing most accreditation requirements would unleash a wave of innovation in legal education and “let a thousand flowers bloom.”

Here’s a better idea: prune the garden.

A thread of insight

Staggering student debt accompanying dismal job prospects for recent graduates causes Huffman to lament the oversupply of lawyers. He suggests that the ABA’s task force “should start by looking within: The organization is a major source of the problem.” Then he lambasts the organization’s accreditation standards as too restrictive.

Huffman’s non sequitur fails to mention the ABA’s most obvious contribution to attorney oversupply: accrediting too many new schools — 15 since 2003 alone. Likewise, Huffman observes correctly that the ABA has become a victim of regulatory capture, but he doesn’t connect it directly to the worst consequences of that victimization: deans free to engage in deceptive behavior to fill their classrooms. Graduate employment rates looked great when schools could include short-term and part-time jobs, work that didn’t require a law degree, and temporary positions that the schools themselves had created.

Missing the real target

Why did deans do it? Because everybody did. Greater transparency risked deterring applicants, which had implications for a school’s U.S. News ranking. Unilateral candor threatened the business model.

Likewise, the rankings methodology has created powerful incentives to maximize spending on expensive new facilities. No ABA accreditation standard requires an established law school to construct a new library. But building one can help to attract applicants, and its added cost boosts the “average expenditures per student” component of a school’s ranking.

Who’s to blame?

Huffman is correct that the ABA has failed the profession. But so have deans who have allowed U.S. News rankings criteria to displace their independent judgment. Rankings have become central to their business models and the youngest generation of lawyers is paying the price.

Some metrics relating to emeritus dean Huffman’s own school prove it:

– At the time of Huffman’s op-ed, the “Admissions” section of Lewis & Clark’s website displayed this headline: “Law school surges in U.S. News & World Report rankings.” The link took the reader to an article about the school’s nine-place jump to 58th in the 2013 edition.

– Full-time tuition and fees at Lewis & Clark currently exceed $38,000 — a 50 percent increase over 2005, when it was around $25,000.

– Lewis & Clark’s annual entries in the 2006 through 2012 ABA Official Law School Guides included employment rates nine months after graduation ranging from 89 to 97 percent. But like most law schools, it achieved those spectacular results using the ABA’s expansive definition of employed. Under the new rules first applicable to the class of 2011, nine months after graduation only 46 percent of Lewis & Clark graduates had full-time long-term jobs requiring a legal degree.

Reality therapy

Huffman’s rhetoric about ABA accreditation requirements as entry barriers that inhibit competition and innovation misses the mark. Allowing schools to experiment with what he calls a “bonanza of legal education alternatives” ignores a harsh reality: There aren’t enough law jobs for the number of graduates that schools already produce, and there won’t be for a long time.

Allowing schools to increase their use of cheaper non-tenured faculty and to offer on-line classes, as Huffman suggests, won’t solve that problem. In fact, absent other necessary reforms, cost reductions leading to lower tuition would likely increase the oversupply of lawyers.

The plethora of deans publishing op-eds in major newspapers presents a new danger. When they Identify false issues and propose ineffectual reforms, they divert needed attention from the real causes of the current crisis. A thorough search for the origins of the lawyer bubble should lead most deans to a painful encounter with a mirror.

That’s an op-ed I’m eager to read.

5 thoughts on “ANOTHER LAW SCHOOL DEAN MISSES THE TARGET

  1. The ABA can’t legitimately limit how many schools it accredits because of a lawyer oversupply problem. This might help law school graduates, but it would be an abuse of the ABA’s accreditation function, which exists to help the public, not lawyers. I found this recent piece by the dean of Loyola University Chicago School of Law was good on the changes to accreditation standards issue: http://abovethelaw.com/2013/03/the-deans-office-why-the-aba-is-resistant-to-change/ .

    • The ABA can do far more to limit (and reduce) the number of law schools. Even when schools have been caught engaging in “reprehensible” conduct “damaging to prospective law applicants, law students, law schools, and the legal profession,” the ABA has never withdrawn a law school’s accreditation.

      • I don’t like misleading law school applicants and I feel badly for out-of-work law grads. But I don’t understand why the ABA should work to limit the number of law schools. Would that help anyone but lawyers & out-of-work law grads? In their accreditation function, the ABA does not have a mandate to protect lawyers & out-of-work law grads.

      • In my view, the ABA aided and abetted the deceptive behavior of many deans and thereby helped to create the current supply of out-of-work grads. It allowed universities to build more law schools (and raise tuition), notwithstanding the absence of legal jobs for graduates who were assuming six-figure educational debt to get their degrees. The ABA has a mandate to uphold the finest aspects of the profession. In this area, I don’t think it has. But that’s just my opinion.

  2. i would go a step further than Noah and say that it would actually be anti-competitive of the ABA to limit entry into the legal field (and into legal education) because law graduates can’t find high paying work. It is legitimate to set good standards for accreditation and actually enforce them, however. Rankings, both of law firms and Law Schools, is another issue, but the best alternative there is perhaps to compete with US News with another ranking that makes more sense. The ABA could do that, since unlike other news outlets it does not need to generate AD revenue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s