News Roundup: Technology and Burnout; Lawyers' Lack of Self-Awareness

This morning I have two sobering stories for your weekend.

The first is from the ABA Journal about a recent report that cited technology and the changing BigLaw model as sources of significant stress and burnout in the legal profession. Kids, if any of you still think the Perry Mason model of legal services is what is common, you need to read this:

“Electronic communication has fueled a culture in which clients want more legal information, answers on the spot, and lawyers who can interpret, rather than simply provide, information,” the report says.The result is more specialization and an emphasis on ability to deliver higher quality services at a lower cost and in less time.
...
“Work settings which do not address stressors of the modern practice of law will continue to produce a significant number of lawyers who are depressed, dissatisfied with the quality of their lives, spend too little time with their families and communities, continue to be isolated and show increased levels of depression and addictive behaviors,” the report says.

While the reaction of many who read this may be "no shit, Sherlock," the real question is whether the professional organizations who are supposed to regulate the attorney profession actually do anything about their industry slipping dangerously close to being the white-collar equivalent of a 19th-century textile mill.

Our second article today may point out why so many lawyers may be "depressed, dissatisfied with the quality of their lives, spend too little time with their families and communities, continue to be isolated and show increased levels of depression and addictive behaviors" and not wish to do a damn thing about it.

In his Sunday Reflection (published on a Friday), attorney Glenn Harlan Reynolds delves into the argument of whether America's problems are in having too many lawyers, or in just plain having too many laws. Although I find that a fascinating question (can you say "yes" to both?), what I found most interesting was his discussion of a new book, which I need to find, called "The Lawyer-Judge Bias in the American Legal System" by Ben Barton at Tennessee. This is interesting:

[Barton] notes that in America, pretty much all judges (except for a few justices of the Peace and such) are lawyers. And, after examining the work of judges in a number of different areas, he concludes that judges systematically rule in ways that favor lawyers, and that make the legal system more complex. (And legislators, mostly lawyers themselves, aren't much better).

Barton tells me that his thesis gets two very different reactions depending on the audience: Non-lawyers find it painfully obvious, while most lawyers and legal academics find it shocking and offensive.

"Shocking and offensive?"

Are lawyers - at least the type Barton interviewed - really that incapable of self-criticism? As a lawyer, you have to realize that your entire job is dependent on problem-solving being a byzantine endeavor out-of-reach for normal people who have better things to do than learn the intricacies of American law.

It is "painfully obvious" that one of our government's chief accomplishments over the last sixty years is to make law more needlessly complex; even though there's been minor movements to streamline and make uniform certain areas of the law (like the UCC), often the arrogance of each generation wanting to have its own voice has made multiple conflicting editions (why did we need a 3rd restatement of basic Tort law?) and the federal government's ability to (and stupidity in) drafting 2,000-page laws has created entire armies who do nothing but interpret ERISA or the tax code. And our Supreme Court, supposed to be the exemplars of the legal system, has cast aside brevity as a goal and turned the once-pragmatic exercise of jurisprudence into a labyrinthine exhaustion of bombast.

Lawyers find this "shocking and offensive?" What do you think you get paid for, except to untangle the massive knots? Could there be any less self-awareness than by grown professionals who have no idea why their field has more work than their French or Spanish peers? That don't understand why their profession has expanded exponentially over the last fifty years?

This doesn't make lawyer work any less "valuable," unless you take the absurd position that work has to have some innate value.

But self-awareness is the first step in correcting a problem, in being a contented human being at peace with himself and the world. If lawyers can't even recognize the most basic conditions and causes of their profession, how can they be expected to realize when their work lives resemble that of sweatshop workers? Will they continue to convince themselves that their 75-hour workweeks are more of a normative benefit to society than work that only exists because their predecessors made it for them?

Lawyers, like everyone else, are self-interested. They make more work for themselves and others; fundamentally, they're no different than auto mechanics who find new things wrong with every car that comes in. The only difference is that they do it on a much larger, more damaging scale. Until lawyers realize that fundamental truth about themselves and their peers, I don't see how it can ever be entrusted to self-regulate.

Administrative Hypocrisy Rampant in NYT Article

Wow. For those who haven't seen it, the NY Times (David Segal) has done a seven-page article on the problems with law school (the law school "scam"). Special recognition to Kimber at SMS is owed for her presence and role in the piece. BIDER and JJD have already commented on the article, and there's little I can add to either their commentary or the article itself on its basic idea.

But I do want to call some of the administrative hypocrites in the article out for what they are, as it seems that part of the article may get lost in taking in the whole seven pages while people digest the enormity of having the problem showcased in the NYT. Considering the administrators in isolation shows why change to the current system must come from the outside, as the law school administrators become too biased in maintaining the status quo that benefits them. I think this is a point that needs to be made explicitly.

I greatly respect the work of Mr. Segal, so I'm going to borrow as minimally as possible to make my point, and I encourage all my readers to go to the Times and read the entire article; it's absolutely worth it.

First up is Beth Kransberger, associate dean at Thomas Jefferson School of Law (one of the law schools who occasionally advertise on this site via cheap google ads), who offered this:

[She] stands by [their 92% employment] figure, noting that it includes 25 percent of those graduates who could not be located, as well as anyone who went on to other graduate studies — all perfectly kosher under the guidelines....

“You need to take the high road,” she said. “Schools that are behaving the most ethically want students who come to law school with their eyes open."

Ms. Kransberger, you know very well that less than 25% of the non-respondents are employed, don't you? And you realize that graduate school is not the same thing as a remunerative job, right? So if you really want to "take the high road" and give students enough information to keep "their eyes open" as they enter law school, why are you adding them in?

No one cares about the "guidelines" except the USNWR people and the ABA. Students need to know how many of your respondents are actually employed as lawyers or at work similar in prestige and pay. "Schools . . . behaving . . . ethically" do not include an arbitrary figure of non-respondents as "employed" merely to boost their numbers, regardless of what the guidelines say what you can and can't do. You also should not be including baristas at Starbucks to behave "ethically." As a lawyer (I presume), you should know that law and ethics do not always align. As a legal educator, you should not be mistaking compliance with the law with moral behavior.

Next up is Phillip Closius, now dean at the University of Baltimore School of Law, who manipulated where low-LSAT students were placed to cause his former employer, Toledo, to shoot up in the rankings. He gets on the list with one paraphrased, self-explanatory sentiment:

In his estimation, a dean who pays attention to the U.S. News rankings isn’t gaming the system; he’s making the school better.

...as if the average student could tell one lick of difference in the education he or she received because the school's USNWR rating shot up 50 spots. On the previous page of the article, Dean Closius had said there were fallacies in the USNWR rankings; now he says following them makes the school better, which is an admission that they have value, which would suggest they are not based on fallacies. Make up your mind.

Next is Dean Yellen at Loyola, who gave this revelation:

...I do know that a lot of schools are hyping a lot of misleading statistics.

Yes, Dean Yellen . . . LIKE YOUR OWN!

Finally we have Yellen's cross-town rival David Greenberger, associate dean at DePaul, who added this:

I think [prospective students] should have all the info, and the info should be accurate, but saying once they know that they shouldn’t be allowed to come, that’s predicated on the idea that students are really ignorant and don’t know what is best for them.

Dean Greenberger, if this is what you believe, why does your school not give "all the info" and why is it not accurate?

Take a look at the following, directly from DePaul's prospective student profile in its admissions department:

Employment & Career Services Information

In 2009, 92.8% of the graduating class reported employment within nine months of graduation. While most DePaul graduates choose to stay in Illinois, specifically in Chicago, many choose to practice in other states. Popular employment locations for 2009 DePaul graduates include California, Indiana, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Washington, DC, and Wisconsin..

Employment Categories

Private Practice	50%
Business	26.1%
Government	12.1%
Public Interest	4.4%
Judicial Clerkships	1.5%
Academia	4.4%
Unknown	1.5%

Salary Statistics

Average Starting Salary in Private Practice	$97,056
Average Starting Salary in Business	$74,267
Total Starting Salary Range	$25,000-190,000

That's it for the website. What in the hell does any of this tell the average prospective student?

Anyone who's taken even an elementary course in statistics knows that an average is not a good measurement for data like this, as they are more susceptible to being skewed by outliers (like the $190,000 graduates) than a median.

What does "business" mean? Is stocking shelves at Costco "business?" How does one know anything by knowing the "average starting salary in business?" Is that all non-J.D. positions, or is it consulting and sales gigs? Is it J.D.-required jobs serving as inside counsel for major corporations?

What does it mean to say "92.8% of the graduating class reported employment within nine months of graduation." Is that permanent employment or do temporary gigs count, i.e., if they were employed for a 2-week gig during the nine month period? Is it really ALL graduates, or just survey respondents (ABA guidelines would suggest it's just survey respondents). Is it legal employment or non-legal employment? How many people even responded to the survey about their salaries? Obviously, if you had at least 7.2% unemployed, your salary range should be 0-$190,000, right?

To Dean Greenberger, I have no problem with the attitude in the latter half of your quote, but the students must have sufficient information first. Unless people like you and Dean Yellen start at home and have your own schools providing accurate, helpful information, your words are meaningless. It's one thing to talk about full and accurate information; get off your butt and do it. Set an example for your peers and the rest of the legal community and push for change in the ABA.

Until then you are nothing but another hypocrite spitting out empty buzz-words and platitudes trying to thrust blame on someone else. You have the power to change the system.

But unfortunately, as the article suggests (notably by Prof. Henderson), change is not likely to come from that quarter. There are at least six law school administrations mentioned or quoted in the article (including Georgetown's) and not a damned one of them comes off as defending anything of virtue. The quoted non-administrator professors all know what they're talking about and as far as I recall, each one puts a hammer to a nail. Something must change when you become an administrator; either that or the wrong people get promoted to that type of work.

These are the people who are to lead the next generation of lawyers, a field where ethical considerations are paramount. If they cannot perform their jobs without blatant hypocrisy or a confusion of ethics with following some silly guidelines, it speaks volumes about the state of legal education, as well as the ability of the profession to self-regulate.