In Blueprint for Change, William Henderson states that the future is bleak for law graduates in the United States because the job market is increasingly uncertain. He writes, “our current legal education is likely to enhance the human capital of our students, but in the emerging economic environment, the benefits of that education are insufficient to pay back its cost […]. The issue is whether the education we offer is able to adapt to the rapidly changing legal industry.”
According to Henderson, the current market is unable to sustain the large numbers of law graduates, and while law schools are having some difficulty filling seats, which ultimately leads to difficulty in finding professional employment for their graduates, they continue to offer attractive financing packages to perspective students, which increases enrollment (and ultimately increases the debt load of graduating students). Additionally, while law schools train students via traditional education models, companies that offer legal products and services (but are not classified as law firms) are becoming increasingly attractive alternatives to hiring lawyers. This in turn decreases the demand for lawyers and leaves many law graduates with an inability to find work in private practice. As Henderson states, “by removing the lawyer from the value chain, cost goes down, quality goes up, and service delivery time becomes faster.”
While Henderson’s research is based on American law schools, I believe that in an era where the legal profession is changing to accommodate self-represented litigants and the entry of ‘do-it-yourself’ products on the legal market, this research adds an extra layer of understanding when it comes to envisioning our futures as lawyers. As my colleague Salman outlined in his blog post “Surviving the Technological Threat,” we have been hearing from our speakers and professors throughout the semester that our current method of practicing law is in danger of changing significantly with respect to new technologies and new methods of outsourcing legal work.
Henderson suggests deviating from the traditional structure and tailoring legal education to fit labour market outcomes, but this does not seem entirely practical for Canadian law schools. While the Canadian legal market is increasingly saturated, we have yet to experience the demise of traditional legal education as Henderson sees it, likely because we have far fewer law schools than the US, and despite our tentative adherence to Maclean’s yearly rankings, our country has yet to implement a tier-based system. As Salman also points out, it is unlikely that the introduction of new technologies will change the legal landscape as a whole. Rather, these technologies will likely assist lawyers to provide more efficient legal services, particularly if lawyers are free to concentrate on more complex legal issues that are outside the scope of these products and technologies.
3 Comments
Good post Geea, it has me thinking.
Particularly interesting to me, especially in conjunction with last week’s partner meeting with Professor Peter Sankoff, is the idea that legal education is becoming more and more divorced from the reality of practice.
While I do not necessarily agree that the traditional lecture model of classes is without merits, I do think that alternative educational methods should be looked into and experimented with. That being said, it is difficult to envision how a change in the way courses are taught would address the ultimate issue: that is, that there are a glut of lawyers and a lack of law positions. Thankfully, and as you pointed out, the situation in Canada is not as bad as in the United States, but I do not think it wise to wait until we look increasingly more like them. Is it simply a matter of young students recognizing that the legal market is shrinking, and thus foregoing the profession?
Interesting topic.
Interesting topic that really ties into the focus of this course. What tools do we, as future lawyers, need as we move into a modern era of legal practice.
I agree with Nick in his statement that we must be proactive. Sitting back and waiting for Canada to take on the same concerns observed in the US is clearly not the answer. However, for what its worth, I don’t think we are. Over the course of this semester we have had a wide array of speakers talking to us about adaptations in both education and legal practice. L21C is an example of this and a step in the right direction. While the ‘problem’ we face ourselves with can seem daunting, I think an awareness of opportunities and constraints increases our potential for adapting in a successful manner.
Great post Geea. I remember when I was deciding which law school to go to and I had some options in the US. After doing research on the American market, I decided to stay in Canada for school. I feel like it was a good decision, considering the state of our legal market compared with the US. There is an over saturation of law students in both markets, but I believe it is worse in the US due to the number of schools and students. It is a problem in Canada too though, with so few articling positions to go around. The legal profession has changed so little over time and I think that extends to law schools as well. I don’t know if we are seeing the demise of legal tradition just yet, but if we are, maybe it is what’s needed for the legal profession to move towards the future.