tv Future of Law Schools CSPAN August 10, 2017 5:04pm-6:26pm EDT
this the wrong way but i'm going. if we know we will die, why would we. [inaudible] i said were not going for fame and were not going for. [inaudible] going to the mom who drops her kids off at school on a tuesday morning and 45 minutes later she jumped to her death out of a skyscraper. >> watch saturday night beginning with tracy crowe and jerry bell at 9:00 p.m. followed by "after words" with senator jeff lake at 10:00 p.m. eastern and robert o'neill at 11:00 p.m. on c-span to book tv. >> former judges the supreme court's in colorado and indiana talk about the future of law
schools at the seventh circuit bar association annual meeting in indianapolis. it runs about one hour 15 minutes. [applause] >> thanks for making time on the program for this conversation about the future of our profession. as brian said i am randy and i spent most of my adult life as chief justice of the spring court and i now do senior service and are in a mediator court and i have an appointment over the indiana school of law. to my right is rebecca who after a career as a trial judge and a practice into more than a decade on the colorado supreme court she left there ten or 11 years ago to be the founding director of the institute for the advancement of the american legal system. she does all sorts of research and work on the improvement of courts and the improvement of legal education of the legal
profession. then professor william henderson is certainly a man the circuit, if there ever was one. his legal education at the university of chicago became a clerk at the seventh circuit and happily spent his recent career at the indiana university school of law and i say there is no one who has done more intriguing work about the future of our profession then bill and becky. i will begin with words of setting the stage. there are many things about modern legal education and that we as lawyers know a little about but not necessarily know about in detail and they provide considerable foundation for evaluating the current state of law schools and both now and in
the future. you could actually describe recent developments by using just eight words. the eight words would be: rising tuition, massive debt, fewer jobs, fewer applicants. i would say a few words about each of those to begin laying the foundation for our conversation today. no mystery to anyone that tuition in higher education has been rising. indeed, it has been rising for the lifetime of virtually all of us here at a rate that exceeds twice the consumer price index. it is, in fact, rising at a rate so rapid that the finance officers of the american universities systems have created a new measure and it is called the higher education
price index designed to give a more accurate reading of how much -- what ought not to be called the sticker price as opposed to the nominal price of how fast the sticker price has been going up. in the two decades that, say just ended -- in the late of the first century and the this entry the general rate of inflation for higher ed was 71% -- real actual adjustment for inflation cpi, 71%. the rate in law schools was not 71% over that. but 317%. it has actually been rising at an average rate of 8% a year in recent decades. that, of course, has led to stories we all read about. the largest amount of debt that
students, both undergraduate and law students, experience rising to the point where americans now owe more in education debt than they owe on their homes. it is a stunning change in the american that picture. the average law student debt on the way out the door is about $85000 in the public schools in about 50% higher than that, 122-$100,000 for students who gone to private schools. this continues, of course, in general to be easy to read about. last week in the wall street journal a new wrinkle on debt was a federal program that has been in place for a while but it's called parents plus from the front pages on the second section about the opportunity that parents have been given to
empower their children to borrow more money for parents would sign and then the federal government would enter a guarantee so that more money could be borrowed. it is now clear that parents plus is having an effect on the disposable incomes, if you will of working middle-class parent parents -- not just on their children but on the parents it has become an abrasive part of what it means to not only be a university graduate but a law graduate. third, fewer jobs. one of the things, we as lawyers, didn't notice -- unless we had a child or close friend who was looking for work over the last two decades is that we have been turning out more jd graduates and turning out more law license holders then there
were jobs for lawyers for a long time. the reason we didn't notice that unless we had someone directly involved was that the way in which employment for new lawyers was reported didn't do a very good job of telling us where they were employed and it simply told us by a large whether they were employed and for what kind of organization for they employed. it was ordinary as recently as 2002 read announcements once a year from the national association of law placement for the american bar association which they this was a great year, 90% of our graduates have found work within nine months and ten months is the measure now -- and that sounded like a happy result. well, as you will recall, there was a series of scandals about the way in which this was reported in one of those
occurred next door in illinois -- our friends from illinois will particularly recall. the change in the reporting system asked topper questions. in particular, how many law graduates, license holders, find a full-time ongoing job for which you have to have a law license -- that is the hardest way of asking the question and in the last half decade or so the answer to that has been, last year it was 59% -- that is to say of all the people who turned out of the school how many people found ongoing work full-time, for which you had to have a law license and the answer to that was 29%. now, that number has stabilized and there has been as low as 57% but the number has stabilized over the last couple of years. it is still that a lot of people
don't find work for attorney general offices or prosecutor offices or private law firms. the other reason is it stabilized is because of the number of new law grads keep declining. the way in which you calculate the percentage gets altered. the fact is that over the last five or six years the number of jobs, full-time, license required job has continued to decline. as recently as five years ago intended to be something like 20000 -- mind you we were graduating 40-45000 or maybe a little more but five years ago there was 28000 jobs in the kind that most think they would look for when they go to law school. this number this year has fallen to 23000 jobs. it's a slower decline than
perhaps in the decade but still a small number. college seniors and second-generation aspirants and college law advisors are no dummies and they can read those numbers so the result is a dramatic change in how many apply to law school. within the last decade the normal number -- and it was the highest number we had ever seen in the country was the all-time high was 100,600 applicants and applicants is a funnier number but -- that number had been something like a hundred thousand for quite a long time and it dropped dramatically in 2016 the number was 26000. it is on the order of a 50% decline of the people who come down and put in their applications.
as of last week, so far this year, there was 50200 down from last year of about a percent. i think that's a number that we could say has stabilized but there are things happening inside that number that's particularly attractive. for instance, of the matriculate, people who get into school, those who come into school with lsats of over 160 0 are half of what they were five years ago. the number who had 150-160 has stabilized and the number of people come in under 150 is up 80% from where it was. there is a very noticeable shift in the metric to use the easiest word. others might say talent or suitability for law school. the other thing that happened is
the change in legal aid as the competition increases people have used their legal aid to change the numbers because it helps ratings and you want to have the smartest students in your law school. the result of that is the amount of merit-based aid over the last decade has gone up 10% and the merit aid has doubled and there is a third category called both merit and need base. i haven't spoken yet to an actual law school administered officer but both men merit so that -- most of that goes to people with the best metrics. it's the folks at the back end of the line that end up with a
far greater share of that debt when they walk out the door with their degree. i've been particularly worried about the effects of this, the demonstrable facts, of minority applicants because their gpa and lsat isn't as good as asians and caucasians. the hispanic applicants in the african-american applicants have lower metrics and it's harder for law schools to hand them scholarships or financial assistance, if you will. as i said earlier, it's been a thought these days is discounting. we have schools in the circuit, by the way, who don't charge any tuition at all for a substantial number of their students. indeed, we have a few schools to send the schools money. not only do they not charge money but they write checks to support the students living expenses.
there are only a few who do that but it's a part of the greater trend. and, of course, last week news there was bar passage rates in the country -- no great surprisn falling. i want to and on an important note which is this is not gone unnoticed by our friends at the academy. the number of people in the academy says, this too will pass, we've heard this as a and it's a shrinking number. research done by aisles and by various entities with which professor henderson is associated about how we change legal education to adjust what it looks like to the professional is very encouraging and very substantial in just thl
learning. how many actual hands-on experiences do we give students has been dramatically changing over the last two decades because the schools are determined to do as good of a job as they can. we are going to hear some interesting news about all of those trends and will start with justice becky. >> professor henderson and i have to stand because the monitor is only visible from up here, not from our seats. i have to apologize for breaking up our trio and would prefer to be seated. >> as you know, i am betsy. i have a background as a trial court and appellate court judge
but now at the university a denzer and we refer to as a think do think. isles which is the worst acronym in the world and i apologize but we were named by a federal judge. [laughter] he wouldn't let me put justice in the name because he thought justice was a term that was too susceptible to the interpretation of the day. we work in four different areas. i have spoken to this assembly on prior occasions but this is on civil justice form. we do work in legal education, civil justice form and we work on the family justice on the sides and then we work on judicial selection and performance evaluation. we've done a little bit in the
indiana on that topic, as well. our process is identify a problem, we gather research, put together a wonderful group of stakeholders and we create models and facilitate and monitor the implementation of those models and we measure outcomes. hence, think do take. the problem here, which we're talking about this morning, chief justice shepard has already identified which is in the context of legal education we are struggling with how to prepare lawyers for the profession as it is evolving so that we begin to revitalize the numbers and more importantly the role of lawyers in our society. these are the drill down numbers to which he has also just
referred and this is the percentage of 2015 law graduates did not land full-time employment regarding bar passa passage. bill henderson and i just chatted and we think the 2016 numbers are due out in the next couple of days. i apologize for the fact that these are a year old but this is the best set of numbers we have at the moment. 30% is the percentage of 2015 law grads who didn't land full-time employment recognizing their law degree; 25 didn't land full-time employment including professional and nonprofessionae priest a number. and 71% of third-year law students who believe they have sufficient skills to practice, the set of numbers is really interesting. 71% of the third-year law students who think they are
locked and loaded, ready to go into law practice. however, the law professors who teach them say that is 45% and -- wait for it -- the percentage of practitioners who believe that new lawyers have sufficient skills to practice is 23%. so, there is a problem there and we at aisles developed a project intended to shed some light of addressing this. we created our foundations for practice practic project. we have support from the hewlett foundation and this is a three phase project and we have put together an advisory committee consisting of practitioners, judges, justices, representatives from the national association of bar
execs from the national conference of bar presidents and the national examiners representatives from the public defenders product, the aba and even the attorney general of colorado. we developed a plan. the first piece of that plan is to identify the foundation that entry level lawyers need to practice. the second phase is to develop measurable models of legal education that support those foundations and the third will be to align, market needs with hiring practices in order to incentivize cognitive improvement. so, phase one. we developed a survey based on existing research for those who are mavens in this area such
research as scholz and ascetic and with the assistance of our advisory council we distributed that survey through bar associations across 37 states in the country. there were individuals from 50 states who answered but the bar association is in 37 states distributed the survey and we had a little of crossover of people who practice in two states. we got 24137 valid responses to the survey. if there are any of you in this audience who answered that survey, thank you for your time. it was a prodigious undertaking because the survey itself was 25 minutes long but we got over 40000 actual responses and 24000 valid responses. the respondent base mirrors the
legal profession and some of the numbers are not wonderful in terms of demographics but, in fact, the respondent base is a representative of both geographically, in terms of the size of firms in which lawyers across the country practice, the amount of money they make, and the demographics themselves. we asked about 147 different foundations in the survey and we categorized those foundations and they broadly fall into three different categories. some of the examples are: identify relevant facts and legal issues, critically evaluate arguments, conduct and defend depositions, listen attentively and respectfully,
make decisions, work as part of a team. the three categories into which we divided those foundations are as follows: skills, characteristics and competenci competencies. remember we have 147 foundations and we are dividing them into these three categories. 27% of the foundations were skill -based, 28% were characteristics based, and 45% competencies. we also graduated the questions that we asked of the respondents and we asked what is necessary in the short term and we asked what is advantageous but not
necessary in the short term but we asked what was necessary over time and we asked what is not relevant at all. this screen doesn't pick up gray so it looks like i'm missing but virtually, not on your screen. here are the results. there were 77 foundations identified as necessary in the short term and by 50% or more of the respondents. again, 147 foundations, 77 were identified as necessary in the short term by 50% more of the respondents. what emerged surprised us. we call it the character questions. here it is.
how does the top 20 of those foundations identified as necessary in the short term, nine are characteristics, ten are competencies and one is a legal skill. there it is. research of the law at number 14. the ten competencies keep confidentiality, arrive on tim time -- this is a millennial issue, right? arrive on time. treat others with courtesy and respect, listen respectfully and attentively, respond promptly, take individual response ability, emotional regulation self-control, speak professionally, write professionally, exhibit tact and diplomacy. the key characteristics, honor,
commitment integrity and trustworthiness and diligence and a strong work ethic, attentions to detail, common sense and a strong moral compa compass. cumulatively we refer to this as the whole lawyer but what about legal skills. this is ostensibly why we go to law school, right? the legal skills show up in the must be acquired over time set of responsibilities. these 20 characteristics or these foundations of the top 20 must be acquired over time for our respondent base. here they are: develop appropriate risk mitigate based mitigation strategies, conduct
and defend depositions, prepare appeals, prepare for and participate in mediation, all of the skills that i suspect all of us would identify either on the transactional or litigation side of practice as being necessary. the take away here is we expect people to acquire these over time. we don't necessarily expect them to show up at the time that they sign up for work, ready to do those things or qualified to do those things. now here is the second part of our survey. here's where it becomes a little more relevant to all of you. we asked respondents to consider the helpfulness of a set of hiring criteria in determining whether a candidate they identified as important.
you have to understand that we took this as a given that they had already answered the survey and identified what was important and then we said how would you hire to flush out the individuals that had those foundations. we did not ask them how they currently hire in here is poor oliver barrett the fourth went to harvard and yale and was note editor of the law review and clerked for wilma cutler. the avowed notion is that this person would get an interview pretty much anyplace in the country but does this person really have on his or her resume indicia that would suggest that
he has those foundations that people said they were looking for. what would people focus on if they wanted to hire the whole lawyer with a character questions. we identified 17 criteria and we asked the respondents to rank them from very helpful to very unhelpful. take a look at these 17 criteria is quickly and i'll show you how the results worked out. here they are. top of the list: legal employment, recommendations from practitioners or judges, bottom of the list: law review and journal experience.
now, this gradation is all respondents and you will note that the first eight have to do with experience and what the respondents told us is that the character patient or the whole lawyer metric emerges through experience. we broke out the data by size of firm, government employer, legal services or pd with firms of 100 plus class rank, law school move up. with firms of two-100 there's a shift in the 100 on. but it still the same topic. in firms, smaller firms, solar practitioner settings, specialized classes, specialized law school classes moved up which makes sense because there
is a little more demand for actual ability to jump in on a particular topic. government employment, the top eight, still the same. there's a little bit of a shift in priority but legal services, public defenders office, you see a particular law school course, specializing presumably in a criminal area moves up. what does all of this tell us as we are thinking about legal education in the future of employment of lawyers? this tells us that practice ready may not be the best term to define what to expect from new lawyers entering the profession. we all expect new lawyers to learn on the job.
we do expect them to emerge from law school as whole lawyers with a blend of legal skills, professional competencies, and the character questions. when it comes to evaluating whether a new lawyer has that character questions or that blend of foundations that we have labeled whole lawyer experience really matters. to date, the foundations for practice project has put out two reports both of which are available on our website. the first really focuses on the evaluation of the data in terms of what respondents are looking for in new lawyers -- where the whole lawyer in the character questions emerged. the second focuses on the hiring whole lawyer and the experience of component.
we, at isles, are moving on to phase two of this project, developing measurable models of legal education that supports these foundations and both of these law schools and employers to shape ways whereby employers can recognize the law school resume or some kind of hiring that these individuals have the criteria that they have identified as important. as a final note, i want to give credit where credit is due and the director of the foundation for practice projects and art legal education section is a woman of alley to some of you have heard speak she was supposed to be here today and a medical circumstance. away from you. i want to know that she is the
one who developed this project and her information appears before you i look forward to the discussion about this and about what it means for the evolution of law school and as the profession. bill. [applause] >> that was a very good pinchhitting job by the judge. thank you. we have learned a lot from this session and i'm very grateful to be back here at the seventh circuit giving a talk to a court that i use to clerk on. the point i will go through today for the central thesis i want to advance is that we need to work at the future law school will drive from the future of law practice and law practice is changing pretty dramatically and i think it evolves over a fairly
long period of time and it's like the boiling frog metaphor -- for those of you who have heard it. you put a frog in a boiling water and heated up that it will die there but if you toss it into hot water it will jump out immediately. to a certain extent that is what's going on with the millennial these days. they practice with fresh eyes and an aging bar we lacked that fresh perspective. it's changing dramatically. i'll give you an overview and then give a corporal prescriptive remarks. on this idea with judge shepard talked about what is going on in law schools here is data that i was able to calculate their data that is posted on the aba website because the average entering class size for about four decades for those of you who entered in 1971, the average class size was 246 and it has
hovered in that vicinity for over 40 years, hit a high water mark in 2010 of 262 and dropped precipitously to 182. the last four years has set a record for small entering class size. in the background we've been adding more law schools since 1971 and there was about 100. >> we hi100.if you can imagine r airline chain that had lost 31% of its beta customers which is that delta between 282 and 182 you would see massive consolidation that was taking place in order to regain pricing power. universities don't think that
way and so we are loping along, trying to figure out what the next move i to be. want to tie this into the labor market somewhat. one more piece of labor market before i get into it. this is the number of 88 graduates from 1973 to 2017 and we can extrapolate what the classes will be by the entering classes and you can see those bright green bars and will go to levels of law school graduates that we haven't seen since the 1970s. this seems to be -- far beyond the cyclical and it certainly can be structural and a lot of people would look at the data without digging deeper and say eventually this will rejuvenate because will drop down to a lower number and the amount that
we need and everything will be fine. actually the nature of law practice is changing in such a way that we can't thank on a smaller base number and build back up. i think that alludes to the report that's given with the seventh circuit, filings are down. to look at this from a holistic perspective i get data from the us census bureau and look at the total market for legal service in the united states and about $290 billion and these are enterprises that businesses need services. there is a class of customer duty you can drive how much you are selling and how much your provision legal services to individuals and how much you are assigned to organizations. you can see there is a big split, about $70 billion to individuals and the lions share
of it goes to organizations. there is a famous study -- at least famous in my circles -- called the city chicago lawyer study done and published in the early '80s from a sample drawn in 1975 of the chicago bar. there's a finding that came out of this which was if you want to understand the structure of the bar, find out who your clients are and from your clients you can pretty much tell what the all-around lawyer was. this was the two hemisphere theory. roughly half of the bar was serving individuals and half of the bar was serving organizations. they replicated that study up to a sample drawn in 1995 and what they found out was the lawyers that were serving organizations enjoyed spoils in the small firm and solo portions was much more economically distressful. this is going back over 20 years now and it certainly that
pattern has continued forward. this has big indications for a law school because my students show up on day one with an idea of what law practices come from pop culture and this is different than the statistics are overwhelming about the number of individuals that we'd like to vindicate and get them full justice. we just don't have the capability to hire competent legal representation. this is something that came to my attention a few weeks ago because i was working with judge becky in denver and her organization, put together the support. here's a couple really shocking statistics. i can remember sitting and saying that i can't believe the numbers i hear. the median judgment is to be $400 in court from a civil matter. is that -- $2400.
75% of the cases had one representative party and you can see the quote that is from the report that the picture of civil justice emerges from the landscape dataset confirms the longchain criticism that the civil justice system takes too long and cost too much. that critique has been in place for quite a long time but it's continuing to get more exacerbated to a point where it's pretty close to breaking point. this is not the type of legal system by which lawyers can earn a living. it looks pretty close to a breakdown. you can get a lot of lawyers for the bigger cases but for the typical case it really doesn't work for the lawyer. so, i queued up the theme of the segment of our the third
individuals in the segment of the part that serves organizations. there is this concept put forward that there's a demand that individuals like to solve their legal problems and they are aware that they have one they can't afford a lawyer so there's this technology products that are coming online by which they can engage in self-help. the white commentator is famous out in silicon valley and it talks about 11 legal tech companies being fairly excited or being financed by the white commentator and the white commentator leadership is pretty bullish on the legal sector and they pull out this quote that says it's really in the individual market there were financing and that the legal tech are reticent to commit dollars to the large law firm segment for a variety of different reasons.
that is what sam was getting at when he was talking about. on the one hand, we have these text startups that are beginning to fill the void, the justice gap by the inability of the civil court system to accommodate or to be able to marry up practicing lawyers with cases in a way that can make the economics work. this is a seachange and i wouldn't put law practice but call it the legal industry. we go back to the chart that i'm doing and i break it down by total amount spent and on one end of the spectrum it's 229 of your average legal budget for an individual in the united states. if one of us gets divorced we will wipe that out for several hundred people, probably. it's an imbalanced $220 is not a lot of money but if you look to see over half of the dollars
spent are spent for the basis of organizations that translate on what their average budget would be. over 50% of the market has 2 million or more to spend on legal services. this is a list of companies that you could get on the book. shorter than the yellow pages. these are folks that spend money on legal services and a lot of it. they are now in a position where they're complaining about the cost of legal services and their beginning to look for alternatives and traditional law firm practices. here is an article that comes from the wall street journal that talks about law firms facing new competition in their own clients are interesting legal services. here's another clip from j.p. morgan that basically hiring a bunch of developers to develop software to automate jobs that would ordinarily be done by lawyers not so much because lawyers are too expensive but there's no way the lawyers could get through the amount of work that needs to be done. they are hiring ai enabled
developers to develop tools to provision their own legal services. this is the trend that's starting to take off the ground. here's a picture of what is happening in law practice today and this is a three trend lines going back to 1997 and shows against the 1997? which is when the census bureau had the classification system up and running so i can go 20 euros 20 years. this is w-2 lawyers and the law firm and government and in-house sector. the big lead from this is obviously in-house that's been growing dramatically. it grew from about 34000 in 1997 to over 100 bytes of. there's as many lawyers in houston today as there are
employed domestically. it's pretty staggering and growing. the hiring rate is about seven and a half times more lawyers being hired in the in-house legal department then in the loft sector. this should surprise folks but if we just ignore the top line and looked the bottom two lines government almost hired twice as many lawyers in the private sector -- at least since 2006. i don't think the government thanks it's been on a hiring boom at all. this is tied to something big and structural. basically, big corporations between building or buying are choosing to build. so, having thought about this topic for quite a period of time in doing more field research as opposed to reading, i have spent time with the in-house legal
department trying to understand the change and buying patterns. i keep up the typology and the real take away from this is what i call the type six client to the far right. these are sophisticated law firms embedded inside major corporations that have the fce's and the specialization, budget rival, any law firm in the country. to a certain extent they've decided to build this in-house because they can't buy what they need externally in the market. there's a variety of reasons why law forms transition or are feeling to transition and fill those gaps but the biggest one is the metric of the billable hour. it's how we measure production and how we sell our services and how we compensate our lawyers. they have antithetical to efficiency in the more for less mantra that we hear from in-house legal departments.
these folks are taking matters into their own hands. the most significant segment in here is the legal operation folks where the gold boxes to the right are very sophisticated folks were trying to use data process and technology and people systems to drive up quality and drive down cost. they are also being aided and abetted by the green bar which is a procurement folks that use all sorts of systems that rapidly turn portions of the legal service market into commodities. this is a big change and this affects outlaws practice and ultimately can we hire from law school and these are the skills they need to succeed. can you raise your hand here if you ever heard of clock? really? no one has heard of clock? i have one hand here. corporate legal operations consortium. this is the fastest growing and
this is big and growing very fast and they've got their convention next week in las vegas and this is the fortune 500 and this is the professionals that are in gold that are getting together to compare notes to build systems, to provision legal services for their internal clients. this convention in las vegas will have 1500 people that are in attendance. every possible vendor in the legal system will be there and basically they are rapidly figuring out ways to drive down there cost. i would say, in a way, it keeps them pretty far field from a civil dispute. this is a rapidly changing, again, driving down the demand for legal services. and to a certain extent, change in the nature of practice and a very fundamental ways. i hope that a few more people have heard of richard -- raise
your hands. quite if you have heard of richard. he wrote a book called the end of lawyers in 2008 and had that? on the end which was meant to signal that what is the purpose of lawyers. he wasn't making a declarative statement but it is their purpose to serve clients and drive a living after we observed those duties. he challenge us to reese think legal services. he wrote another book in 2013 call tomorrow's lawyers would recommend to everyone. it's only about $20.160 pages and you can buy a copy and read it on a plane flight between here and the east or the west coast. it's a marvelous successful book. richard has been writing for long periods and a fairly level extraction and i see more and more evidence of what richard is talking about is coming into fruition. a model that richard uses and
their i will get to speak to the future of legal education because the future of what the market is telling us it wants. either the startup ecosystems are tapping into the latent demand for individuals and services and when we think about legal services richard makes a claim that every one can travel along these five stage progressions in the spoke is tailor-made and that's what we learn to do in law school. taylor made an argument to win and get in court that a contract to consummate a desired protection. we can all get what the spoke is but he's talking about moving on a continuum from standardized assessment dyes to product to package to commoditize. any lawyer, including me, that says commoditize is a scary place to be. it's hard to make a decent living if i work product is free
over the internet. a lot of lawyers retreat back to the idea of doing the most technically sophisticated stuff, the brain surgery that we learn, and claim we know how to do in law school we learned over a period of decades in practice. richard is making a claim that the system package is where the law will reside. the individual corporate hemisphere that i talked about before what the struggling from his lack of lawyer productivity and it's this inability partially to substantially perhaps function of how the legal system is set up to its procedures and its trial practice in the presumptions that are built into it. it makes it uneconomical to access legal services through the standard format of the court system and from the corporate perspective there such a massive amount of need they can't afford
to pay large firms to continue to do that and they need efficiency. they are doing it themselves. so, the systemized package solves the problem and the lawyer productivity problems on the hemisphere equation. we need information system and systems of engineering, finance, marketing, project management, and loss. of course, you need law but there are other disciplines that aren't taught in law school. i think it would be beneficial to have an eye drop of those disciplines within the legal education but i think the key, the future is the ability to communicate across those disciplines to effectively engage in multidisciplinary practice and to come up with a solution that is outside the legal expertise but requires legal expertise for them to serve at the best interest of their clients. that is a pretty tall order but i see every time i login that
the stuff that is getting talked about there and i see the future that comes across those professionals are talking about is moving in that direction. i want to end up here with this idea of people and process and technology that will be some variance of that we will need to incorporate into legal education and it will happen slowly and much too slow for my satisfaction. will have to work for the demands of the marketplace. we have the folks ultimately put pressure on the law schools to change what we teach and how we teach. i will do you one quick exercise and then we will be done here. this is a famous, by my life, famous study done by scholz anesthetic by commission of the law school admissions council that make the la ct and was
published in 2008 and the data was gathered in the early 2000 and basically they did a study that was a can to what judge becky did. they try to delineate the factors you need to be successful as a lawyer and was based upon the university of california berkeley alumni base at the university of california hastings base. about 1200 lawyers in the sample. after they delineated these factors using gold standard psychology methods they came up with behavioral anchored rating scales to judge the quality of the lawyers of how they perform on these 26 different dimensions. by was in the sample they would have a score for my supervisor, peers and my negotiation skills or my practical judgment. they took that data and correlated it back into academic predictors.
the la city and the gba which are prized on emissions. i will put this question to you and i had look at the takeaways from the study. which attributes below are the better predictors of lawyer effectiveness? undergraduate grades, la ct, personality assessments, emotional stability, self-control, conscientiousness and which was it? was it a or b?
i thank you very much for your time. [applause] we have persuaded brian welch to preside over q&a and comments and all of us are glad to respond to anything you have heard any of the three of us say. >> i don't see any raised hands. do we have any questions? were going to try to walk the microphone around so people can hear the question.
judge barker, you have the floor. >> the morning. >> going back to your last slid slide, the a in the be, is that reflective of the criteria that the law schools use in choosing law students? >> guilty as charged. i say of judge barker gets up there she's gonna throw us a fastball. the law schools, we feel like we are locked into a positional competition through u.s. news & world report so we do look for undergraduate credentials to admit on and that's how we award scholarship money. this is how most of the 200 schools to that.
maybe some of our self regulated organizations can get together and figure out ways to break that logjam because there's all sorts of consequences on society and i think we will learn that we will come to regret where were at. having been on the inside a law school, not only at my school but talking to a lot of other law schools, it's a very serious issue to flout the conventions of u.s. news and world report. if your alumni and students and applicants can all be easily thrown into a tailspin if you dropped ten points in the rankings. i'm a believer in rankings management. there are ways that the law schools themselves, i know one school that actually focuses on employment outcomes and admits people with lower sat
because they know they're more employable on the backend and they run the math. that's very early in where were at. i would love to break out of that prisoner's dilemma. >> almost in impossible for an individual school to do that. you get killed in the marketplace. >> it's got to be collective. >> changing the discounting could be darn near fatal. deborah from ohio state university law school has done some important work trying to tease out a few of the options that might exist for collaborative work. she has gained some attention because of that. >> another question here in the middle. >> it's not a gpa, but are you talking briggs and myers test? does anyone that you know of use be based hiring? >> i was actually part of an
applied research company and we helped law firms utilize that. let me stay centered on the study. they used a variety of instruments, they used hogan products and so they used assessments like the developmental survey instrument and they looked for the positive attributes and the negative attributes for on-the-job performance. they been validated over a long period of time and many different professional settings. larry richards is somebody that's in the law firm space, a psychologist that has a big practice built up around the hogan products and he probably has tens of thousands of law
firm partners, especially law firm leaders. there are folks out there that are using them. there's also other tests that were in the initial judgment, the biographical inventories which are kind of like a moneyball type instrument, all of these things predicted way better. some of the academic predictors were negatively correlated with those factors. the higher the sat the slightly lower the ability to develop business. there is a huge amount of effort that can be put into the law firm to begin to think thoughtfully about who's successful in the practice and why. you can't bill self reflection and they dramatically
underinvest in thinking through the development, but there's tremendous research that's been done and i'm happy to go off-line and equate somebody with where to begin on that inquiry. those tests are being used. >> talk a little bit about the role of the bar exam and what that place, the correlation between bar exam passage and else that and the extent that we have built in our own piece of this puzzle that we may need to unravel. >> i'm not sure that i exactly nowhere you want me to go with this but i will go with what i know the lsat is a pretty good predictor of bar passage but your law school grades are about six times more of a factor. your law school grades are
about six times more important than ultimate bar passage. independent of lsat, what would protect your grades? motivation and character factors that the judge was referring to, showing up. i would always take attendance in my class and i've always struck, every year i get the same result. you come to fewer classes and you get a lower grade. some of those people have high lsat scores. i guess i should ask, is that the point you were trying to direct me toward? >> yes, i just wanted to raise the question. it's easy to say that this is all u.s. news and world report fault and there's nothing we can do about it, but there are things we can do.
we've talked about collective action by law schools, we've talked about changes in hiring practices that incentivize law schools to produce different products or create different measures for those students were graduating and then there's the bar exam over which we do have a significant amount of control and questions about whether we should be thinking about changing the bar exam, asking different things, directing different kinds of skill set development through the bar exam is the issue i was trying to put on the floor. >> new hampshire iran a pilot program, it was the franklin pierce report that allowed
graduates to completely opt out of the new hampshire bar if they took a simulation and they built a portfolio. the takeaway was that the young people who went through the program were better on so many different dimensions which i think gets to the judge's point that if the initial demand for the bar on who gets admitted on what criteria, if we change that we could actually end up with people who are better prepared and more effective. >> the early days of that optio option, a relatively small number of students chose to do it because they thought they would be harder, and that's brilliant. i would think there would be some interest in altering the final, if it was something valid and reliable, i remember being in a setting one day
where a lawyer came in on behalf of his client and said my client doesn't want to do drug court, he'd rather go to prison. what he really meant was drug court is pretty darn tough and it would be easier to simply spend two years in a jail somewhere than it would be to go to prison. the key would be, what you want to measure and be, can you create a measurement that actually holds people accountable and separates out the people we shouldn't turn loose on clients from the ones that it's okay to turn over important things too. >> other questions. >> we've got a microphone right there. >> want to go back to the slide about change and replacing people with technology and there's a lot of that going on. i want to know why we are not
ultimately talking about shrinkage of capacity in law schools, fewer law schools, fewer lawyers over the long run because these jobs are not coined to come back. the document reviewer jobs are not to come back and they probably should it. >> so should we repeat the question. >> so the question is why isn't really what you're talking about just shrinkage in the size of the legal profession which, at some point can meet we don't need 200 law schools. maybe need 150 law schools. maybe we should watch that go down further. >> i agree with you, the question is are we going to do it through some sort of regulatory force or to the market and to the market it will be a long slow, painful process and if we do it regulatory early, which law schools, law schools close but i completely agree with you.
i think we are clearly headed down that road. we have a lot less people making cars in the united states than we did 20 years ago. >> i just want to say, this is not a problem unique to law school so the federal trade commission has done studies about how industries, the word they use is rationalized in the face of declining demand. there is a big debate at least in antitrust circles about whether you should let the market do this because it will be a better result even if it's painful along the way rather than top-down. >> i would add just one other consideration and bill alluded to rebecca's work on the justice gap, the unmet legal need in the united states, you can see that for the self
represented litigants numbers. so yes, part of it is downsizing of the profession, but i think there's another component about the profession serving the people who need legal assistanc assistance, and doing it in innovative ways that are affordable, unbundled legal services as an example, maybe we develop limited license legal technician options such as the state of washington and now utah, maybe we become more involved in the kinds of online services that are being provided and playing a role and then jillian henderson would take the position that there is a unique role for lawyers in the kinds of systems that are being built through ai, a thomas cars for
example, thinking through how to build out the rules for what a thomas cars do or don't do so i think there is a demand for legal services that is huge. it's a question of how are going to meet that demand and mother were actually going to come up to the mark in changing the way that we think about the product of what a lawyer does and how that lawyer is trained. >> you can say that law schools are shrinking, i was very surprised last week, i spent time during the fall of 2016 matriculation numbers and there are a lot of law schools that matriculated fewer than a hundred students and some fewer than 60 or 70's. one thing that has happened,
historically, most of these law schools sent money into the central administration budget of their universities announce quite common that money has to flow in the opposite direction. it's a very difficult time to be a lobbying in an american law school. the number of people who find employment as teachers has been shrinking and the number, the amount of money that it cost people like whittier to finally say we choose no longer to subsidize this operation is the subsidies that iran back in for the department which there was not much market demand. >> who is paying for this right now? the u.s. taxpayer as a guarantee or of this one, i think that should affect the antitrust analysis somewhat. >> other questions. >> i was wondering professor
henderson if you could talk a little bit more about the studies that are trying to correlate young lawyers attributes with career success. have those studies measure career success. i assume, the highest paid jobs are using the wrong metrics and if you just measure lifetime career earnings you'll find really strong correlations between the else that core. how are you to finding success in those studies where you're finding stronger correlations with things like conscientiousness and timeliness and those kind of traits. >> you have to back out from that analysis the initial effect that it might have on your first job is your first
job will affect your employment, your lifetime earnings, but specifically going back to the berkeley study, what they did is they took those 26 effectiveness factors and they developed descriptions on the positive and negative side for seeing the world through the eyes of others or the ability to develop a business or integrity and what it would look like positively and negatively and then through a series of iterations where they asked practitioners to place those along a continuum, to give them a specific score and this led, the effectiveness was that the rating scales were very, very reliable and valid for predicting future performance and so that's how the berkeley
study was conducted. they just took those behavior rating scales to supervisors and employers and they got their scores and make correlated with sat and they're only six of the 26 factors that were positively correlated and three of them were negative. in my own study, when you look to see how elite schools do in terms of persistence, they get oversample that the beginning and the persistence of elite law school graduates can persist a lot lower than regional grad school because of the fact that law firms take their top ten or so law schools and they think maybe the person doesn't have the motivation of the characteristics to succeed there long term and i think that is rooted in a historical bias in the bar that privileges academic
credentials and extrapolates way too far. to be an effective lawyer, there's a much bigger toolset than academic ability. the hiring bar and the judiciary quite frankly overweight academics. he played over a lifetime and academics matter but not nearly as much as we think. >> i think we have time for one more. >> i wanted to talk about law school curricula for a moment. one of the things i've thought for a long time both as a hiring partner and a lot from is things like bar review, you've got the top of the top members of each law school class killing themselves running for law review and learning a skill that's useless. i have not found it correlate with good riders. they learn how to write for law review. they don't write briefs or
learn how to write is lawyers. i'm wondering if the law schools have looked at focusing on what really helps them be a good lawyer and a good writer. >> sounds like they should. >> go ahead, you can answer. >> the answer is there some pretty innovative things going on around the country that's directed toward trying to produce better riders and better thinkers. the problem with it from my perspective is it tends to be the innovation tends to be concentrated in the bottom two quartiles of law schools around the country. the top ranked law school doesn't see the need to do those sorts of things. they have higher employment rates as it is they are sort of resting on their laurels. so from our perspective there are some innovative wonderful law schools, but most of them are the ones that are struggling with their market
share which is not the right message either. >> i think we will leave it there. thank you to our panel very much for this morning's presentation. [applause] we have a 15 minute break on the schedule. please come back in 15. i neglected to say to you that there is a wi-fi available, if you wanted the password is seventh circuit. it should be on the slips on your table. we will see you in 15 minutes. thank you. >> cspan, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, cspan was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. it's brought you today by your cable or satellite provider.
all this month members of the house and senate are back in their home states and districts. here's a look at what they are up to you to up to during the august recess. norma torres is on a five day, six city tour of manufactures in her city. there are a few photos of her visit to a factory that manufactures canopies and awnings for everything from space telescopes to u.s. c sites. in iowa, chuck grassley is on hand for day one of the iowa state fair. he is sharing photos on instagram. he's seen here with an intern from his des moines office. he also posted a picture with the butter cow. the senator notes he has visited the sculpture every year since 1974. congress returns september 5 with a busy fall ahead. on their list of issues to take up include passing of federal spending bill by the september 30 deadline, to fund the federal government. more is expected by the end of
the year. off the floor the senate is expected to continue work on healthcare reform holding committee hearings next month. watch live coverage on sees -- cspan. commentators debate the future of. [inaudible] here on c-span2, book tv is in prime time with a look at the brain and human behavior. scientists explain our sense of time in relation to physics in his book your brain is a time machine but starting at eight eastern. we will look at baker versus car in the case the supreme court ruled that the drying of election districts could be
considered by the federal court. american history tv is in prime time all week with our original series landmark cases. now we take you to harvard university with former virginia education secretary. she is the wife of democratic senator tim kaine and daughter of the first republican governor since reconstruction. >> women in leadership can be senior leaders interested in leveraging their leadership skills to advance education initiatives. this year's cohort is in the audience and i would ask them to stand so that we might recognize them. >> you can see how shy they are.