Law and economics and the future
28 December 2009 • Ricardo J. Bascuas • 2 Comments » • Tags: None“It’s not an easy year for lawyers.” That was a Greenberg Traurig partner in Bloomberg a few days ago. The layoffs and cutbacks are reportedly just a start. Hourly-rate billing and lock-step associate salaries have been eulogized as relics of a gilded era when clients forked over robust legal fees to swarms of document-reviewing drones. Nowadays, clients insist such work be outsourced to India, where lawyers trained in the common law will review documents for $30 an hour. Their law schools are pumping out lawyers at more than twice the rate of American law schools. (If I had any entrepreneurial inclinations whatsoever, I would be on the phone to Mumbai putting together a cadre of NLSIU graduates to grade American law school exams.)
No one who has given any thought to how large firms operate can be surprised at the retrenchment. It’s amazing this has gone on this long. The big-firm business model depended on scores of young associates generating inhuman timesheets in the hopes of being among the ragged few who survive to be anointed partner and reap income from a new generation of drones. As an insightful article by someone named James Smith notes, the legal academy’s disengagement with reality has everything to do with this:
As all lawyers know, law schools do not fully prepare lawyers for practicing law. While many law schools have introduced clinical courses, the reality is that law school can only lay the foundation for a legal career. Thus, good law firms always have provided training to their associates.
But no one wants to pay for that anymore. The seeds of implosion were sewn in the heady ’90s when the drones began fleeing the hive for Silicon Valley and already pretty high salaries became irrationally exuberant, to use the phrase of the day.
Guess what happens when you raise associate salaries to ludicrous levels. That’s right: you get a 15% rise in law school enrollment in less than a decade’s time. (Previously, it took more than 20 years to see that kind of growth.) And now the whole thing is collapsing with lawyers being laid off and entire firms closing.
Guess what happens next. That’s right. The pressure to revamp legal education is building like Diet Coke and Mentos. Law schools that don’t deploy an ambitious clinical and experiential curriculum disserve their students and will not survive. As I observed once before: non scholae, sed vitae discimus.

Hi Ricardo,
Great post. I just arrived in Miami and hope to meet you in person really soon. I thought I would share this post, which is related to your thoughts here:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/too-many-lawyers-but-also-too-many-cartels.php
Best,
Sergio
I don’t necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but I think I oppose it. The adage that law school teaches you how to think like a lawyer (but not how to actually be a lawyer) sounds scary. Imagine a young electrician arrives at your house who has only had training in how to think like an electrician. You might not want him running wires.
But we’re not running wires. We’re thinking. Very few of us are going to step out of law school and into a court room. We have plenty of time to learn the skill of lawyering after law school, and in a much more appropriate setting. Teaching a skill is relatively easy. Rewiring the brain is tough. And, frankly, three years ain’t much time.
I think any law firm is going to be better served by a new associate who is highly capable of complex legal reasoning than one who has a semester of clinical experience. The law firm is positioned perfectly to provide the real-world experience needed to complete the education. The law school is positioned perfectly to teach us how to think. These roles strike me as rather effective.