Although this Google ad I came upon is real, the claim cannot be literally true. It isn't. Cooley actually requires some undergraduate study; among other candidates for admissions, it seeks qualified Junior College graduates with an associate's degree. (To be sure, these need to be high-performing community college grads. According to Cooley's admissions page, a JC grad with a 4.0 GPA will still need a 157 LSAT to get in.)
I wonder whether Cooley is operating under an ABA waiver or is just being aggressive in its interpretation of Accreditation Standard 502(b)?
Setting aside the accreditation issues, will this ultimately become a new path to create lower cost legal education?
If a law school can manage to convince students with a 2 year junior college degree (total tuition, on average, $6500) to attend law school, it might produce law school grads with radically lower total educational debt, even at fairly high JD tuition points. And if the JD insitutions are highly subsidized state schools, or highly discounted private institutions, all the better. These grads will, in turn, be better positioned to charge clients middle-class friendly hourly rates.
There probably aren't many 2014 community college graduates who'll have the minimum LSAT to get into law school. But that could be a transition issue. If the ABA authorizes law schools to open this pathway to a JD, you might see a growing number of talented high school graduates opting for junior college (or a very inexpensive state school) with an eye toward entering high school after two years. These law graduates might not be attractive to Skadden or Cravath…but then again, very few law school graduates are appealing to them, even today.
Many law schools might not want to be seen as catering to this pool of future lawyers. But some will be quite happy to be the dominant producers of lawyers for the middle class. And an AA/JD for $80,000 tuition (paid over six years) would even be affordable, out of pocket, for many upper middle class households.
I'm not yet prepared to say that a JC to JD pipeline is a good idea. But if we believe that a big hunk of America needs, but fails to receive, legal services, this is at least one way to imagine solving the problem.
As I've said before, I've long thought an ideal solution to our current woes (both law student debt and the faculty-side pressures caused by falling enrollment) is eliminating the undergraduate study requirement entirely and allow universities to issues Bachelors of Law (LLB) degrees as first degrees, as is done in most of the rest of the world (the only exceptions of which I am aware are Canada outside of Quebec and, to a more limited degree, Australia, which is in transition). I suspect that at most institutions the LLB would take either 4 1/2 or 5 years after gen ed requirements are figured into the mix, but that's still much better than 7 years from the perspective of most graduates. Of course, there would be a panoply of requisite changes at the institutional level to deal with new questions, such as how to admit students to the program, but nothing insurmountable.
All that said, I still doubt it will happen for path dependency reasons, especially the current rankings/prestige systems, which would likely punish any school looking to innovate in this area. But, were we to build a system from scratch, the requirement for a prior BA makes no sense for 98% of students.
As I understand the landscape out there, many schools have already established 3+3 programs, my school included. This allows gifted students to start law school after their junior year. The first year of law school also counts as the last year of their undergraduate education.
Students who take the Cooley option should check the admission requirements for their future jurisdiction. I haven't reviewed the admissions requirements recently, but as of about 10 years ago, many states required an undergraduate degree for admission.
"These grads will, in turn, be better positioned to charge clients middle-class friendly hourly rates"
The total cost of attendance for both 2 years of college and 3 years of law school will still be significantly larger than 4 years of college and 3 years of law school cost through the 1980's, and that cost structure certainly did not create middle-class friendly hourly rates. In any event, the members of the middle class really don't want to pay hourly rates at anything close to what would be necessary for the lawyer themselves to maintain an hourly rate that would keep THEM in the middle class. The simple fact is that while many members of the middle class would be advantaged by hiring a lawyer for certain situations, they typically won't and yet still get along fine. For example, when you're a buying a house a competent real estate attorney could be very helpful, yet most people I believe don't hire one. And the end result is, well…nothing bad happens. The deal goes through, they get their new house, and move on.
twbb: In states like NY, an attorney for a real estate closing is essential. However, the attorneys — at least outside Manhattan in the NYC area and suburbs — charge about $1500 per closing, so you have to do a lot of them to earn a decent living. Keep in mind R.E. brokers get 4-6% of the purchase price for selling the same property.
Where most middle class people by-pass attorneys is for Wills, Powers of Attorney, etc. == things many know they should have but go without or do them on Legal Zoom.
Cooley is truly a disgrace, but the ABA seems to be fine with them.
I doubt an AA/JD path is the way to go, but I do question why we don't allow the market a much greater say in how best to train students to become attorneys? Is the ABA so certain that the seven year Bachelor/JD path is the only effective way to train someone to be an attorney? What's their evidence?
As Charles notes, the vast majority of the world qualifies their students for practice after five years. Which means that Skadden/Jones Day/etc.'s European offices hire graduates with only five years of higher education. If five years is good enough for Dieter to be hired by Skadden in Munich, why isn't it good enough for Mary to be hired by DeFur Voran in Muncie?
Prof. Freedman: While I agree with you that the ABA should give serious reconsideration to its position regarding the BA/JD track, I can't agree with the notion that "the market" should have much more say than it already does in the form of overall market pressure on the profession. The practice of law in the United States is a self-regulating ethical profession. We have a group obligation, at both the law school level and at the state bar level, to ensure only those that can competently and ethically meet our professional obligations join our ranks. That obligation is separate from whatever level of ethics and competence "the market", which is composed of both attorneys and non-lawyers (who may have lesser standards for competence and ethics), might be willing to minimally accept.
@ FE. I'm not suggesting the ABA/state boards/etc. leave it up entirely to the market. Of course there should be licensing standards that include competency and ethics. What I am questioning is the unquestioning acceptance of the three year JD model for legal education and licensure.
Charles Hoffman notes the prevalence of LLB programs in the world. Assuming American employers were willing to hire LLB's, I think most potential students would prefer a five year LLB vs. a seven year JD. Would employers be willing to do so? As I mentioned, many of the world's top law firms hire LLB's, why should the U.S. be any different?
Not that we should be particularly wedded to the LLB. Two year JD's, legal practitioner programs (like physician assistants), and other innovations could serve the goals of reducing the cost of legal education and making legal services more accessible. We could also consider eliminating the bar exam, as Wisconsin has already done for graduates of its law schools.
Maybe the three year JD is the best model, maybe it isn't. Why not allow law schools to offer reasonable alternatives such as the ones I just listed and see how the market of prospective law students and legal employers respond to it?
Given the boom in LLM programs at law schools across the rankings spectrum, it seems that many lawyers have concluded that seven years' education is not enough — they need more education to land a meaningful, well paying job!
A two-year JD would probably not result in greater pay or responsibility than that given to current paralegals.
Given the ABA's refusal to address the current state of legal education and practice in any significant way, the last thing that should happen is the elimination of bar exams. The bar exam is the only remaining barrier to entry into the profession by people who should truly not be practicing law. That suggestion is a terrible idea.
@ Prof. Freedman: I don't think that using the standards for attorneys operating in different legal systems is an appropriate guide for the training required for attorneys in the U.S. That top world wide firms hire LLB's to work in foreign jurisdictions doesn't strike me as persuasive, or even probative, on that point. To the extent that you are arguing that these firms hire LLBs to practice law in the United States, those LLB holders still need to be admitted to practice law here. In some states, I'm thinking of NY in particular but I have no doubt that there are others, a foreign degree is not considered enough to permit a foreign lawyer to even take the bar exam, let alone be admitted to practice. An additional U.S. degree (usually an LLM) is needed.
As I said, I'm in favor of rethinking the law school curriculum in general (although very much not in favor the "legal practitioner programs" you mention for reasons I won't get into here), but I don't think the "market" reactions to changes bear on those question much. In particular, the market of prospective legal employers should matter only insofar as those potential employers are also attorneys and understand the demands of the profession. Those folks already have a voice through the ABA, other professional associations, and the like.
As to how the market of "prospective students" would react, the suggestion is more than a little bit strange. How would determining competency and ethical requirements for the practice of law based on what prospective law students want be markedly different than writing a final exam based on what the class would like to be tested on?
Foreign legal systems don't need to be a "guide" for the U.S. legal system, but surely their experiences in training talented attorneys in five years should say something to us about how many years are required to adequately prepare someone for the practice of law.
I don't understand what is so special about the U.S. legal system that it requires two more years to prepare for it than in almost every other country. Surely the French legal system is extremely complex with complicated legal principles and practices governing its administration. Yet, by all indications France, which only requires five years, has a stable society with a strong adherence to the rule of law. Must be the snails.
I just don't see why students shouldn't be offered more choices. Unless supporters of the status quo can present evidence that three is the magic number for the number of years it takes to train someone to be an attorney, then why not explore allowing law schools to offer a two year/60 credit JD. If there is in fact significant value in that third year, then employers will demand it and students will seek it out. If there isn't, then we'll have saved tens of thousands of law students one third the cost of attendance.
As for the bar exam, what's going on in Wisconsin? Since the vast majority of the Wisconsin bar never passed a bar exam, I suppose Wisconsin must be on the verge of anarchy? Could someone look that up?
p.s. I'd like to emphasize at this point that I am speaking for myself, and not on behalf of the State of Kansas. Also, I should clarify that I am an administrative dean, not a professor. You can call me Steve.
"I'm not yet prepared to say that a JC to JD pipeline is a good idea. But if we believe that a big hunk of America needs, but fails to receive, legal services, this is at least one way to imagine solving the problem."
This idea that, if only there were lots of newly-qualified lawyers out there with little or no debt, legal services for poor and middle-class Americans would become available at cheaper rates than currently prevail, is a recurring canard.
There are already lots of experienced lawyers out there with little or no debt. They're already competing with each other, and charging as little as it is possible to charge and still survive. The notion that by adding still more lawyers you'll "solve the problem" by driving down the cost of preparing a will or defending a DUI even further is lunacy.
@Ellen:
I think many lawyers are just desperate enough that they convince themselves an LLM will make them stand out when honestly it is probably one of the least useful graduate degrees around. I totally agree about the bar exam, and as the applicant pool and the resulting law school student body gets less and less accomplished I think we're going to see a massive lobbying effort on the part of law schools to get the bar exam eliminated or the passing threshold lowered.
Twbb
"As the applicant pool and the resulting law school student body gets less and less accomplished I think we're going to see a massive lobbying effort on the part of law schools to get the bar exam eliminated or the passing threshold lowered."
Bingo.
And, don't expect any reductions in law faculty sizes if the JD program moves to two years. Expect instead tuition hikes (though less steep than of late) and more interest in hiring faculty that know little or nothing about the practice of law, especially because such knowledge will become increasingly irrelevant to law students facing job prospects that are increasingly unrelated to becoming attorneys.
BB, I don't think we can all agree that legal services for the elites are important and necessary (not sure you believe this), but that the only legal services the other 99% need are "preparing a will or defending a DUI." That sounds a bit like something a modern day Geoffrey Barratheon might say!
If I knew who Geoffrey Barratheon was I might be worried!
twbb: I was joking, of course, about LLMs. Agree they are mostly useless and getting one is probably an act of desperation for many.
Iowa law schools have floated the idea of eliminating its bar for Iowa law school grads. I hope that this idea is a non-starter in most states since it is an obvious attempt by law schools to eliminate the last remaining barrier standing in their way to open admissions.
I also agree that the notion we need more lawyers to service the unrepresented in nonsense. Look at South Dakota — only about 2000 lawyers in the entire state, some counties have no lawyers — they started an incentive-based program to attract out of state attorneys and it has not done much good. Why wouldn't unemployed or underemployed JDs who truly want to practice law and help people be flocking there?? The fact is, most lawyers do not want to do the kind of work the poor and under represented need or go where they are to serve them.
@ Steve
I'm not saying that we necessarily do need a 7 year pathway to becoming an attorney. As others have noted, 3+3 programs are becoming increasingly common and there are other programs that have been proposed (e.g., NY C.J. Lippman's 2+1/2 proposal). I'm all for exploring alternative pathways, I just don't think saying "other countries don't need as much time" is probative either way on the amount of training an attorney practicing in the U.S. needs. It's an apples to oranges comparison. That both are pieces of fruit doesn't tell us that much.
As for the bar exam, I think that you may have a view that's colored by the school you work at. KU is a relatively selective school where 90% of the students pass your state's bar exam. It might be easy to think, with your crop of students, that anyone who can get admitted to a law school should be able to pass the bar and is capable of competently practicing law. From there, it's a short jump to thinking that the exam is superfluous. However, that's simply not the case at many lower ranked schools where students are sometimes admitted that really aren't capable of practicing competently. Read some of the final exams from the bottom quarter of the class at an unranked school and you will see what I'm talking about.
Re: Wisconsin, it's tough to make state to state comparisons on this issue as well. Wisconsin has a relatively healthy lawyer:population ratio and a small number of law schools (2 says Wikipedia), so the unqualified law grad problem is probably not as much an issue there as in it is the Northeast or California where the ratios are markedly worse and there are many more law schools. For example, Mass has 9 schools but only a 20% larger population than Wisconsin.
@ Ellen
I'm surprised to hear that the SD program doesn't have a sufficient response rate. The program only had less than twenty openings, after all. Are you saying that they don't even have enough qualified applicants to fill those spots? That would be very disappointing.
Dan: "I'm not yet prepared to say that a JC to JD pipeline is a good idea. But if we believe that a big hunk of America needs, but fails to receive, legal services, this is at least one way to imagine solving the problem."
Jesus fucking H. Christ, you guys never fucking give up! The market is already glutted; the reason that legal services are out of the reach of so many people is that they don't have money.
Ellen: "I also agree that the notion we need more lawyers to service the unrepresented in nonsense. Look at South Dakota — only about 2000 lawyers in the entire state, some counties have no lawyers — they started an incentive-based program to attract out of state attorneys and it has not done much good. Why wouldn't unemployed or underemployed JDs who truly want to practice law and help people be flocking there?? The fact is, most lawyers do not want to do the kind of work the poor and under represented need or go where they are to serve them."
The population of South Dakota is 833K; that's 416 people per lawyer. The population of NY State is 19.57 million. There are 76,000 members of the NY State Bar association; that's 247 people per lawyer. And NY State pulls in vast amounts of national and international business.
The reason that South Dakota has so few lawyers is that there are very few people. Stop looking at maps, and gawking at square mileage.
The reason that some counties in South Dakota have no lawyers is that there is no business.
Barry:
Did you mean:
"The population of South Dakota is 833K; that's 416 people per lawyer. The population of NY State is 19.57 million. There are 76,000 members of the NY State Bar association; that's 247 people per lawyer [BECAUSE] NY State pulls in vast amounts of national and international business."
?
2+3 programs? Could see it with some of the lower ranked schools, where they take their own students from undergrad to law school. That way that university keeps their own law school afloat. Also if a student would only be there 4 years for undergrad, by doing this program the university gets another year of law school.
Even could foresee a 2 years undergrad, 3 years law school, 1 year MBA, so in 6 years then 3 degrees are earned, saving the student 3 years of tuition.
Anon, what I meant was that SD has half as many lawyers per capita as NY, but considering the vast amount of international and national business conducted in NY, the ratio of lawyers per ordinary person is likely similar.
IOW, SD is not underserved; it's poor and sparsely populated.
twbb: "@Ellen:
I think many lawyers are just desperate enough that they convince themselves an LLM will make them stand out when honestly it is probably one of the least useful graduate degrees around. "
When one is $250K in the hole, and can't get a job, going another $100K looks reasonable.
"I totally agree about the bar exam, and as the applicant pool and the resulting law school student body gets less and less accomplished I think we're going to see a massive lobbying effort on the part of law schools to get the bar exam eliminated or the passing threshold lowered."
That explains the recent push I'm seeing to 'open up' the field, with people (lyingly) complaining about law schools restricting the number of lawyers. Starting up some alternate paths (with low bar passage rates) would help cover for law schools going to open enrollment.
Maybe I am missing the point, but isn't the ad's line "law school without undergrad study" well. . .a lie? And isn't a law school lying in an ad a bad thing? Sure this opens up a larger discussion on attorney education requirements but I am a little troubled that Cooley has simply lied about their admission requirements.
@ anon 7:58
I think that the reason there hasn't been too much discussion here about the honesty of the ad itself is that Cooley hasn't exactly developed a reputation for honesty in its admissions practices. The school's shady practices are well enough known at this point that there is even a the Sixth Circuit case holding that Cooley used employment statistics that were "objectively untrue." (the case is MacDonald v. Thomas M. Cooley L. Sch.). I'll admit that it is kind of sad that we have reached the point where a school like Cooley using misleading information to increase applications is so unsurprising as to not even merit serious discussion.
Anon @ 7:58 am
I have to agree with Former Editor and it bears repeating. When I counsel young people about deciding to go to law school, I warn them that the courts have tended to hold as a matter of law that one cannot reasonably rely upon what deans and law schools say about their law schools, even when the statements are objectively untrue.
Barry: The State of South Dakota has undertaken a program to entice lawyers for other states to practice there because of what elected officials, the state's bar association and its Chief Justice perceive as a large, underserved population. I heard the Chief speak on this topic and mention that there are counties with no lawyers.
I don't care what the number of lawyers per capita is or how that compares to NY. I don't think is a situation in which numbers alone tell the story.
In any event, I merely raised SD as an example of a part of the country that would appear to have opportunities for people who really wanted to practice and help people in response to those who argue that we need to pump out more lawyers more cheaply to serve the underserved. Ample opportunities to serve those people exist now and there are few if any takers among out of work lawyers.
Ellen: "Barry: The State of South Dakota has undertaken a program to entice lawyers for other states to practice there because of what elected officials, the state's bar association and its Chief Justice perceive as a large, underserved population. I heard the Chief speak on this topic and mention that there are counties with no lawyers.
I don't care what the number of lawyers per capita is or how that compares to NY. I don't think is a situation in which numbers alone tell the story."
I *do* care about the number of lawyers per capita, and anybody thinking of practicing law should, as well.
Ellen, you made an argument, and I shot it down. I can understand that you 'don't care'; I'm aiming at the others.
And BTW, this has been covered on the scamblogs; poor rural areas can't support lawyers.
Former Editor: "I'll admit that it is kind of sad that we have reached the point where a school like Cooley using misleading information to increase applications is so unsurprising as to not even merit serious discussion."
What's sad is that the court simply ruled that fraud is OK, so long as it's by a law school.
Barry
Just read the decision. The misrep about the salary info, the court found, was contradicted by other info in the disclosure, and thus could not give rise to reasonable reliance.
Even more interesting, IMHO, is the analysis that concluded that a "business purpose" is the reason a law degree is obtained, which relates to some other threads addressing the "commodification" of a law degree.
To the extent that obtaining a law degree is increasingly thought to be a business acquisition, the integrity of law schools will increasingly become a distant memory, just as to speak of the "integrity" of our financial markets is now, in the view of most, mostly a sad joke.
Barry: Don't know where your hostility comes from, but I did not make an argument, as you state. I stated facts that were provided to me and others by the Chief Justice of South Dakota on that state's desire to bring more lawyers to rural areas.
Chill out…..
This would be fought tooth and nail by colleges and universities. Law schools part of a university would get the message not to support. Standalone law schools would not have the weight to fight against them.
Anon123:
Universities with law schools in the 50-100 range would probably offer a 2 years undergrad/3 years law school option to keep their law full of students rather than shut them down.
The school would otherwise get 4 years of undergrad tuition.
This way, they end up getting 5 years of tuition total, and they fill the law school with warm bodies.
Financially for the student saving 2 years of tuition and living expenses for someone who is already committed to going to law school makes sense.
For the unranked schools it is fight or die time – and when the times get tough, the ruthless get ruthless.
Ron, if ALL the universities with law schools stick together and fight this, they get their 4 years of undergrad and SOME law students, for a total of 7 years. If they go along with the proposal, they MAY get more people but a total of 5 years. They can point to a number of legitimate points why this proposal is not workable, in addition to the value of an undergrad degree. They can point to this will not work for many majors — such as accounting or engineering. They can point to this will not work for schools with strong core requirements (many Catholic schools, many state schools), in that student would not have any advanced classes or a substantial number of major classes. They can point to the need to develop writing skills. With all due respect, I think anyone is dreaming if they think this is a viable proposal. The universities may very well come back with the answer is cut law school to 2 years, allow credit for paid internships, etc.
PS — and there are FAR more universities and colleges without law schools than with law schools. They have motivation to fight this.
Ellen: "Barry: Don't know where your hostility comes from, but I did not make an argument, as you state. I stated facts that were provided to me and others by the Chief Justice of South Dakota on that state's desire to bring more lawyers to rural areas."
I was not hostile; I pointed out the problems with your argument. And it was an argument you were making, unless you go around posting random facts for fun.
I got hostile when you looked at my counterargument and BS'd about it.
I've noticed that law profs and deans really don't do well when people don't have to be deferential. And they do worse when numbers are central to an argument.
Posted by: Ellen
Anon:
"Barry
Just read the decision. The misrep about the salary info, the court found, was contradicted by other info in the disclosure, and thus could not give rise to reasonable reliance."
Thanks for the information.
"Even more interesting, IMHO, is the analysis that concluded that a "business purpose" is the reason a law degree is obtained, which relates to some other threads addressing the "commodification" of a law degree.
To the extent that obtaining a law degree is increasingly thought to be a business acquisition, the integrity of law schools will increasingly become a distant memory, just as to speak of the "integrity" of our financial markets is now, in the view of most, mostly a sad joke."
That's important; to my mind, the court is basically saying that the expected professional ethical obligations[1] don't exist (or are limited).
[1] In theory, law schools are both academia and part of a profession; both should carry ethical obligations.
Anon,
You wrote:
Ron, if ALL the universities with law schools stick together and fight this, they get their 4 years of undergrad and SOME law students, for a total of 7 years.
—–
Except the problem is that there is a war going on with some universities wanting to keep their law schools and wanting other universities to have to close down their law schools for lack of students. A game of last man standing.
So some universities have an interest in 7 years of college and law school tuition.
And some universities don't.
And who can regulate this? Can the ABA?
President Obama supported cutting 1 year of law school out, substituted by one year of apprentice/intern/training. So universities can counter, "Well we keep 3 years of law school, but shorten college by 2 years and an MBA program by 1 year. So students save 3 years of tuition and costs, making total time in school 6 years instead of 9 years."
Since some of these law schools are on life support to survive, this is the sort of offer to survive, which also satisfies those individuals who want to cut down on student loan debt for young people.
6 years for 3 degrees is probably the wave of the future for unranked and lower ranked law schools.
The status quo for those schools means they will shut down.
Ronald, the universities have far more undergrads than law students. They do not want to reduce the time for undergrad degrees. They will give up law school first. For the very good student at universities with lower ranked law schools, the student can likely graduate undergrad in 3 years (through AP credits and heavier course load), but that good student will earn an undergrad degree. The average student is going to need 4 years. The universities are likely to make the point that the person who drops out of law school may be left with no degree.