Solo Practice University® » Law School Innovation

Solo Practice University® “Bridges” Program Adds Two More Law Schools

Susan Cartier Liebel — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:30:08 +0000

California and Arkansas Schools Join New York School Helping Students and Alumni Prepare for Practice

NEW HAVEN, CT (January 17, 2012) — Solo Practice University® (SPU), the leading online educational and professional networking community for lawyers and law students, is proud to announce strategic partnerships with two more law schools to help their students and alumni create and build sustainable solo practices.

SPU’s groundbreaking “Bridges” program recently welcomed law students and alumni from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) William H. Bowen School of Law and Chapman University School of Law in Orange, California. Current and former students of these schools will join nearly one thousand other lawyers and law students who are taking advantage of SPU’s online classes, tools and other services to help launch or advance their independent legal careers.

“The Bureau of Labor Statistics tells us that by 2017, more than 40 percent of all working Americans will be self-employed,” said Susan Cartier Liebel, Founder and CEO of Solo Practice University. “Place that in the context of the legal profession, which already has a much higher rate of self-employment than other careers, and you see a clear trend that more law schools are starting to accept and act upon.”

“We are aware that more of our graduates are opting to hang their own shingles early in their careers,” Chapman University School of Law Dean Tom Campbell confirmed. “Many Chapman Law grads have already become very successful sole practitioners. But it is vital that graduates making the transition to solo practice in this difficult economy get the mentoring and training they need to make this career choice. Understanding how to manage a solo or small-firm practice is essential to new lawyers’ success.”

“Many Bowen Law graduates choose to start solo practices in small towns and rural areas, where the need for legal services is especially great,” UALR Bowen School of Law Dean John DiPippa pointed out. “By teaming up with Solo Practice University®, we can better prepare our grads for the challenges and opportunities of striking out on their own, thereby helping to improve access to justice for Americans.”

UALR Chapman Law and Bowen Law join inaugural SPU Bridges participant New York Law School, which helped launch the program at the 2011 Future Ed conference in New York City last April. “I commend our two new partner law schools for recognizing that their students and alumni need help in the legal job market today,” said Ms. Cartier Liebel. “Their progressive and innovative approach to legal education is the way of the future, and they agree that SPU is the next stage in the evolution of legal education.

“SPU’s mission is to bridge the gap between the knowledge law schools provide their students and the skills required by new lawyers,” said Ms. Cartier Liebel. “Our ‘Bridges’ initiative, which is open to law schools across the United States and Canada, expands that mission and gives law schools a way to supplement their students’ legal education with practical, skills-based learning opportunities.

“We are actively soliciting more law school partners that are equally committed to ensuring their graduates have access to practical, career-oriented training opportunities during and after law school,” added Ms. Cartier Liebel. “We will be announcing more partnerships soon.”

About Solo Practice University®

Founded in 2009, Solo Practice University® is the leading online educational and professional networking community for lawyers and law students. Currently comprised of more than 630 online individual classes presented by more than 52 faculty, Solo Practice University® provides access to expert advice, mentorship, tools, information, technology, and the professional network lawyers need to succeed in the current marketplace.

The essence of Solo Practice University® is collaboration. Experienced lawyers from a variety of practice areas teach the nuts and bolts of actual practice. Business experts in law office management, client attraction and retention, technology, social media, billing, accounting, marketing, and more, serve as instructors and mentors to those opening their own practice.

About University of Arkansas at Little Rock, William H. Bowen School of Law

About Chapman University School of Law

For more information about Solo Practice University and the Bridges program, please contact:

Susan Cartier Liebel
Founder and CEO
Solo Practice University®
The “practice of law” school
http://solopracticeuniversity.com
203-745-0277
susan@solopracticeuniversity.com

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel

The Future of (Legal) Education

Susan Cartier Liebel — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:11:47 +0000

This past Friday and Saturday I had the distinct privilege to be invited to attend the Future of Legal Education Conference (Twitter stream #fe3) hosted by Harvard Law School and New York Law School. It was actually an amazing experience because a corps group of legal educators came together to share ideas on how to change legal education. Most importantly, it was a stark recognition of the hurdles that need to be cleared in order to effectuate change. As you know, the actual process of changing can be daunting, but the first step to change is recognizing and accepting changes must be made.

Over the past year, proposals from law faculty and technology and legal industry leadership were submitted and 30 were accepted for presentation. There was no competition between schools; it was all collaboration between schools. And future law students are going to be seeing much more of this in the next few years.

The focus was on utilizing online technologies, cost containment, the economy, and the economy’s impact on new graduates. In a nutshell: survival.

The theme of survival was starkly and clearly laid out by one attendee who referenced the Concord Law School model. At $40,000 total for a legal education, ‘if they get accreditation from the ABA, they are going to wipe the floor with us.’ (Dead silence).

The format was simple. Each team was to make a pitch to angel investors (the audience) who had one million ‘attention dollars’ to award after all presentations were made. They were truly forward thinking presentations which focused in large part on the use of technology. The winner was one I can proudly say I backed with $500,000 in attention dollars. It was called Apps 4 Justice - Learning Law by Creating Software - combining student education with Legal Aid and automated legal services/documents (created by law students) for lower income clients. I called it Legal Zoom for the poorest in our country. In essence, technology is introduced to automate legal services (document automation) for those who qualify for legal aid.

Another presenter attacked the costs of law school and the burden students have to bear for legal scholarship. He didn’t get brownie points when he provided supporting documentation that 30 – 50% of tuition is an involuntary fee tacked on to tuition so professors can write scholarship which is becoming increasingly irrelevant to court decisions. The cost of tenure also kept getting referenced but the audience remained quiet. What was presented was an innovative education model – Franklin W. Olin, College of Engineering. There is no tenure and no academic departments. It hinted at the possibility tenure may become a relic down the road as Olin is described as paving the way for the new ‘Ivies’.

There are those who want to fix the model (many were present at this conference). There are many who want to protect the model and their security. But as students walk out with crushing debt – arguably half the tuition to fund increasingly irrelevant scholarship by faculty – something’s got to give.

What further struck me: not once in all the presentations or commentary did a single person (other than myself, of course) say the word ‘solo’. They discussed those who go into ‘Large law firms, corporations, government and pro bono.’ And being in this audience of those who really want to change and recognize the need to change, I sensed something else.

Law schools don’t see those students who go solo as graduates who have failed. They see those who go solo as a reflection of their own failure because they were unable to get them employment. This mindset makes any discussion about solos the proverbial elephant in the room. This mindset has twisted and re-shaped legal education, its offerings, the cost, and the method of delivery. Every institution and program which has been fostered has one universally defined successful and measurable output - getting their student’s employment: ideally – an associate’s job which helps law schools to justify the students’ economic ‘investment’ in law school. The premise that law school’s sole mandate is to get their students ‘employed by another’ disenfranchises a whole segment of student who wants to be their own boss or has no choice but to be their own boss.

Legal education should have one overarching mandate: to educate students sufficiently to serve the legal needs of society. They should not educate and train solely to the path of ‘employee’. They should educate and train for any path which allows their students to serve the legal needs of society. This includes in large part self-employment. Once they do, the elephant in the room will be gone.

Yet, sadly, solos have been walking around carrying the burden of the legal education system’s shame for failing them. Solos have nothing to be ashamed of nor do they have to be defend it. And when someone like myself advocates that the solo option should be presented as a valid and respectable option within law school to those not willing to publicly acknowledge there’s even an issue, there’s always a lot a ‘shifting in the chair’. I’m reminding them of their failure, too.

But to Rick Matasar’s credit (Dean and President of New York Law School), he got it and he got it quick. When presented with an opportunity for a strategic relationship with Solo Practice University® to help his graduates today he grabbed it with both hands. He’s not one for reinventing the wheel when he can start driving now to get where he wants to go. (When I mentioned to another Dean how progressive Rick is, I was told, ‘those who are described as progressive are slow compared to Rick.)

At the conclusion of the Future Ed Conference on Saturday, Dean Matasar announced NYLS has officially formed a strategic relationship with Solo Practice University® to help their students who wish to go solo. (I was also informed that when students read the press release they were “banging down the doors”.)

The numerous dean’s I met this weekend are no slouches either when it comes to recognizing it’s time to help responsibly educate their graduates who are going solo in increasingly larger numbers. When talking one-on-one they all said a significant number of their graduates are going solo. So, there will be more exciting news to announce soon.

If you want to learn more about the Bridges program, and then share with your law school, send your dean and career counselors this link. Help your law school to recognize solo is a valid and respectable option for your law degree and there is a program which can help….today.

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel

SPU & New York Law School Take On Solo Education

Susan Cartier Liebel — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:44:27 +0000

We are very pleased to announce our new ‘Bridges’ program and we thank New York Law School (and all the other law school deans and career counselors who are currently in discussions with SPU) for being the first in this initiative.

You can learn more about this partnership in our official press release and learn more about the Bridges program here.

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel

How Career Counselors Can Help Law Students Go Solo

Susan Cartier Liebel — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 11:30:30 +0000

On January 27th of this year I had the distinct privilege of educating more than (70)seventy (113) one hundred and thirteen career counselors on how they can help their law students and grads who either want to go solo or feel they have no option but to go solo. I thank Amanda Ellis of Amanda Ellis Legal Search for providing this wonderful opportunity.

The very fact so many career counselors were interested in this topic is very heartening, at least for me, because this has been a mission of mine – educating those who directly influence students about their career decisions that wanting to open a practice upon graduating is not an unworthy effort for their students nor irresponsible, expensive, or inevitable malpractice.

In my opinion, career service counselors have an affirmative obligation to be open-minded and knowledgeable about all possibilities for all of their students, providing guidance, resources and support especially in this market when there are few guarantees of employment.

For those who think document review is a stepping stone for many of these students please read ‘Armies of Expensive Lawyers, Replaced by Cheap Software.”

It is…”estimated that the shift from manual document discovery to e-discovery (will) lead to a manpower reduction in which one lawyer would suffice for work that once required 500 and that the newest generation of software, which can detect duplicates and find clusters of important documents on a particular topic, could cut the head count by another 50 percent.”

You need to be helping your students now more than ever.

If you are a Dean of Students, career counselor, or Director of Alumni, I invite you to listen. If you want to learn more about how you and your school can help your students through our special programming, please contact susan (at) solopracticeuniversity.com

Students:

If you are a law student who wants your school to work with Solo Practice University®, provide your career service counselors and Dean of Students a link to this post and ask them to listen to this teleseminar. Then have them contact me.

We’re ready to help.

This teleseminar runs approximately 40 minutes. Note: The audio ends abruptly after several book recommendations due to a minor technical malfunction.

Susan Cartier Liebel interviewed by Amanda Ellis

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel

Is Law School A Losing Game? We Asked. (Audio Post)

Susan Cartier Liebel — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:47:38 +0000

When the New York Times ran an article on January 8, 2011 ‘Is Law School A Losing Game?” it got reprinted in all major newspapers, set listservs and Facebook abuzz because it hit so many chords. If you haven’t read ‘Is Law School A Losing Game?’ do so.

Sadly, in my opinion, they opted to feature Mr. Wallerstein as their example of the typical law student graduating today. He went to a law school based upon the climate in Southern California. He borrowed and borrowed and borrowed, spent a month in Prague and then the south of France living the high life on student loan money.
Now he is basically hoping his law student loans will evaporate or the government will bail him out. He can’t get a legal job but likes the prestige of being called a lawyer.

Simultaneously, they are legitimately lambasting law schools for the profit-making machines they are loan sharking to the uninformed or misled and are in cahoots with the federal government because it is just so profitable to lend to potential law students…. it’s almost criminal.

Rather than hear what I have to say on this subject, I invited SPU’s two terrific columnists, Rachel Rodgers and Jack Whittington, to discuss this article, law school Wallersteins and their own experiences in law school and after because they are in the thick of things. They are both coming of age in this new economy and Gen Y lawyers. Rachel graduated 18 months ago and Jack is graduating this May. They have much to share and you’ll want to hear it if you are considering law school, are in law school, or newly graduated.

You can listen below. Running time is approximately 55 minutes. Listen to the end. It’s worth every minute to hear their thoughts and advice to those thinking of law school.

Law School Losing Game

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel

Third Year of Law School Should Be Practical. Period!

Susan Cartier Liebel — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:26:45 +0000

Yes!!

In this upcoming lawsuit, 43 year old Georgetown law student, Rodger Gordon has a valid point and is taking a leave of absence from school to appeal his recent court loss to the U.S. Supreme Court claiming his third year should be optional – that the first two years is more than adequate to sit for the bar exam and he should not have to lose another year of his life or incur substantial debt when it’s not necessary especially since he’s not getting anything of value in his third year.

This jibes very nicely with the recent Carnegie study which says law schools are not providing enough hands-on training to students to make them truly qualified, something I’ve been advocating for almost two decades.

Given the increased competition in the job market, there can be no question that experience and practical training speak louder than a respectable grade point average and a semester as an academic research assistant.

Some are nostalgic about their experiences in law school, nose to a dusty book in the corner of the library contemplating changing the world. But, guest what folks? Idealizing law school is just not going to cut it in today’s marketplace if you want to become a lawyer who can actually pay her law school loans back while finding a meaningful place in the profession and business of law.

We are not suggesting that law schools abandon the promotion of intellectual thought and discourse, but we believe that law school administrators must adapt to what is happening off-campus in the legal community. Law students, with the support of the institutions, should approach the third year as the primary time to get their hands dirty, have some real world training and generally find out what “practicing law” is all about. Today’s third-year law students are no longer willing to incur thousands of dollars in debt only to have professors “bore them to death,” as the old joke goes.

In view of the job marketplace, law schools should prepare students for the real world by providing them with marketable skills. For instance, electronic discovery is a hot topic in litigation, and those with knowledge of the process and the review platforms are at a premium. If recent graduates were able to step right in with little or no formal on-the-job training on e-discovery issues, they would be very marketable.

Schools should consider a “How to Be a Solo Practitioner” class for third-years. One of the benefits about being an attorney is the ability to work for one’s self, rather than for someone else. More and more young lawyers are setting out on their own (or in small partnerships). If law students learn how to provide basic services (estate plans, simple contracts, etc.) and how to run the business side of a small office, they can tread water as solo practitioners. By extension, courses on topics such as “Marketing and Networking Strategies” and “Client Counseling Issues” should also be offered.

Of course, I take umbrage the author sees solo practitioners as ‘treading water’ and not as a viable professional decision which is part of the greater problem. However, just the mere mention of Marketing and Networking strategies and technology as responsible courses in law school should be hailed as miraculous but instead it sends most law schools into a state of hysteria. Why? Because they don’t get it as they sit (falsely) protected in their tenured towers. You get someone discussing cloud computing or social media and they feel their fortress is being dismantled one stone at a time! The irony, offer these types of courses in a third year and you will actually strengthen your position as a law school going forward. The students are demanding it. The clients are demanding it. The profession is demanding. Wake up!

Law school MUST provide practical training. It is not a luxury. It is a mandate.

What do you think?

(H/T to Debra Bruce)

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel

Should Law School Come With A Warning Label?

Susan Cartier Liebel — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 20:00:08 +0000

It is an interesting question Ari Kaplan asks in his latest column. And he brings in a host of great minds to answer the question, ‘Should Law School Come With A Warning Label?’. This includes law school faculty, some deans and some practitioners including our own faculty member, Jay Shepherd.

This is such a hot button issue, transparency about what one is really getting into (and going to get out of) when they attend law school, it has generated much spirited debate amongst those who say, ‘you should have known’ versus those who feel they’ve been victimized by the process.

I’ve been guilty of being in the ‘should have known’ camp even though I have railed against the law schools for their lack of transparency and deliberate misrepresentation of job statistics while they are on bended knee worshiping at the altar of U.S. News and World Reports.

Here’s my story. Maybe this will help those who are considering law school or considering getting out of law school while they can.

I never was dreamy-eyed about L.A. Law or The Practice or Damages. I wanted the education and originally had no idea whether I would practice law or not but knew if I chose to practice it would be in my own business. I also believed the degree would be an excellent one to help me navigate through life. And there are a lot of people just like me who go to school without fantasizing about ‘THE case’ or appearing before the Supreme Court. There are a lot of students who go to law school and do well in law school (and after) with a particular mission in mind or simple love of a particular practice area or get their degree and become in house counsel for their family business or the degree assists them in their current job or it is a second career after being pensioned out of a previous career. And then there is a significant majority who go into law school by default, lack of anything better to do but figure having a graduate degree is better than not having one. The latter is the group who gets most injured. They go into school in spite of the number crunching, in spite of the job market, in spite of the economy expecting they will be different. They are different. They are the ones who get crushed.

When I taught my class, ‘How to Hang A Shingle Right Out of Law School’ at Quinnipiac University School of Law, on the first day of class I reminded the students that chances are they will be in the botttom 95% of their graduating class who don’t get the Big Law job offer or clerkship. Do they have a plan ‘B’? This was a real wake-up call. I also asked, ‘how many students are here simply because you need two credits and this is a perfect filler class?’ Several hands would go up. I would then tell them, ‘this may accidentally be the most important class you will ever take.’ (End of the semester most confirmed this to be true

So, back to when I went to school. I had taken my LSAT’s four years prior, got accepted to two local schools and decided not to go. I wanted to work for a while. When my LSAT scores were about to ‘expire’ almost four years later, I reapplied to law schools in my area ( excluding Yale because that just made absolutely no financial sense to me if I wanted to go solo). My work trajectory was not satisfying and I was being offered more of the same.

I remember the day so clearly. I was offered a very high paying job with the state doing ‘more of the same’. I had just received the phone call offering me the state job, went downstairs to get my mail, was about to toss out what looked like junk mail and decided to open it instead. Inside was my acceptance to University of Bridgeport School of Law (now Quinnipiac). I remember standing over the trash can, letter in hand saying, ‘a job or poverty – job or poverty’ – meaning three years without income and moving back in with my parents (even though I would fully pay for law school myself with loans while working a side job to pay my ongoing responsibilities). I did the cost benefit analysis. I knew if I went to law school and decided to practice law it would be in my own practice. This would be the only way I would practice law, as my own boss. So, $60,000 in loans plus loss of income for three years had to be considered. I remember saying to myself, ‘if I can’t earn back $60,000 in a year or two I have no business being a lawyer.’ I took my acceptance letter and went back upstairs to continue crunching the numbers. My decision was made. But I did the analysis. It made sense for me. If I stopped being a lawyer I still had a good chance of weathering those loans without killing myself trying to pay them if I didn’t want to practice. I can honestly say if the degree were to cost me $150,000 I would not have made the decision to go to law school.

As it turned out I LOVED being a lawyer and opened my practice with two others right out of law school eventually going solo…and, well, you know the rest. I backed into my legal career practicing full time for 13 years and always in my own firm. I more than paid back my loans from earned income as a practicing lawyer as well as made up for the three years of lost income while I was in law school (which was substantial) and earned a very good living. I could afford to figure my life out this way because I did the all important cost benefit analysis and the marketplace and economy were more accommodating.

Today, things are very different. The costs associated with getting a law degree, the job market and the availability of information to make an even more informed decision are plastered across the internet.

Potential students need to do their homework and do a cost/benefit analysis AND the law schools should be more transparent and accountable for providing real information.

Students also need to remember law schools are businesses. They have one motivation, truly. That is profit. The professors may love what they do but unless the school is run like a business it won’t survive. So they will market, market, and market. They will soft-peddle less desirable job placement numbers and push under the rug facts and statistics you need to make a truly informed decision. Law schools have a different agenda than you. Once you are through the system ladened with debt you are no longer on their radar except for alumni fundraising. They are laser-focused on the next group of paying students. They owe you nothing.

This is the truth.

Therefore, how badly do you want to be a lawyer? Do you have a game plan for the debt? Does it make sense for you? If all you’ve ever wanted to be is a lawyer, you know no other passion and you are willing to figure out how to handle the debt, then at the very least go to a school which provides the best education based upon what you can reasonably afford after you’ve crunched the numbers. And more importantly for all students, if you get into law school and it isn’t for you, don’t be afraid to walk away after your first year. Cut your losses and move on.

What’s your story?

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel

Are Law Schools Finally Waking Up??

Susan Cartier Liebel — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 13:15:34 +0000

When I read this post on Law 360 – Lawyers Reimagine Law School For a Changing Market, I think I was first stunned then happy then slightly skeptical. My skepticism came in (as it always does) when I realized this reimagination is being driven (as it always is) by economics.

The thrust of the post is law schools are waking up to the fact they can no longer train lawyers for Big Law associates positions but must train them for self-sufficiency.

Most law graduates do not go on to work at large firms, but many law schools have continued to teach toward that business model, leaving many law graduates with towering debt and low salaries working in government, nonprofit or smaller firms, panelists said.

Did they not know this before the economy exploded? Did they not know this before Big Law firms imploded? Did they not know this before clients rebelled against the model no longer willing to foot the staggering bill for associate training?

If law schools haven’t felt the market pressure to diverge from the traditional three-year model, it’s likely they will soon as law firms come under greater pressure from clients to stop training young associates on the client’s dime, Altonji said.

“Frankly, it’s offensive that it takes $1 million to $1.5 million of the client’s money to train your typical associate after they get out of law school,” Altonji said.

No. They knew this before. But it wasn’t until this perfect storm did the spotlight get turned upon their sweaty faces to expose the law school education model for what it was – pure profit generation at the expense of the majority of students. Now that Big Law firms are putting pressure on them…because their clients are putting economic pressure on them…and because with citizen journalists via social media putting ‘digital’ pressure on them…have they awakened and are taking action. And I know the action they are taking has everything to do with preserving their businesses. But guess what? If it helps the future student who wants to be a lawyer, if it helps reduce crushing debt which after a long convoluted path allows for access to justice for more clients because lawyers have more flexibility due to less debt, then it’s OK. I don’t really care what motivates change as long as change is a’comin’.

It does beg the question, “what of all those law students of the past 5-10 years caught in the vortex of extraordinary debt, no practical skills, no jobs while the law schools failed in their (real) mission? Is this going to be the lost generation in the legal profession? Some would snarkily say, “there are many who have found their way despite it. The rest can leave the profession if they can’t cut it.”

I don’t have an answer for you on this one. This lost generation of lawyers with crushing debt, no jobs and no practical training could number anywhere from 200,000 (based upon graduation rates of 44,000 per year) to 400,000.

And to those who wonder why I have such a strong position on practical training in law school? Here’s the answer:

When I was in undergraduate school at Syracuse University’s Newhouse School I was majoring in advertising. I LOVED advertising. After my first year I went home to get an internship over the summer and I wanted to work at the New Haven Register. They asked me what practical experience I had. I recited everything I learned in school because at 18 1/2 what real world experience could I have had in the advertising world. The guy looked at me and said, “tell your professors they are teaching antiquated materials. Come back when you have some real world experience.” And this was for an internship (self-created, of course.)

It was then I realized the only way academic knowledge would become real for me and marketable was if I was applying the knowledge as I learned it.

Sophomore year I went back to school and created my own internship(s) in advertising agencies. I then leveraged those internships each year into summer paying positions. Within two weeks of graduating college I had several internships and paying positions under my belt and was employed at a top ranked advertising agency in New York City. Why did they hire me? Because I had practical experience and could hit the ground running.

When I went to law school I took every class and clinic I could that gave me hands on experience so I could apply what I was learning. I was blessed to work on an amazing domestic case which had me doing trial prep for two months including interviewing, interrogatories, motions and in a real trial for four weeks doing direct and cross-examinations of witnesses all while fighting pneumonia. The trial continued through finals and concluded on Christmas Eve. I had to get special permission to take my finals the following semester and convince the school that I should get credit for my trial practice course (which I couldn’t complete) because I completed a real trial versus a fake trial. Yes, a case had to be made for this because the obvious eluded the committee. This was why I felt comfortable (nervous, but comfortable) going out and opening my own practice with two other new graduates right after passing the bar. I wasn’t a malpractice case waiting to happen, either.

Opening one’s own practice right after law school is an option that every law student should have because they got real world experience and training IN law school enabling them to feel some level of confidence.

So, let the change begin. And for those who are caught in the ‘vortex’, there are resources for you. I think I’ve created one called Solo Practice University.

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel

Don't Be a Victim of the 'Victim Mentality'

Susan Cartier Liebel — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:30:41 +0000

(This post addresses a myriad of issues so I apologize in advance if it is a little rambling or disjointed.)

“Self-pity is easily the most destructive of the nonpharmaceutical narcotics; it is addictive, gives momentary pleasure and separates the victim from reality.”
John W. Gardner

There was a recent opinion piece in the L.A. Times called ‘No More Room At The Bench’ which created some minor discussion on Twitter and got a mention on Legal Blog Watch. Basically, the author is of the opinion that too many new law schools are opening, there are no jobs for those who are graduating and the ABA plays a significant role in this imbalance and won’t do anything to shut the flood gates on new law schools or sufficiently regulate the information provided by law schools on the reality of employment.

You might be surprised to learn I disagree that opening more law schools will hurt future students or lawyers. And dare I say that the average consumer of legal services actually wins. Competition allows for change. Competition allows new programs to be devised, innovation in the delivery of legal education including online programs, and forces those law schools which cling to the old ways and the high tuition costs to suffer a major blow. As costs go down only the fittest and most responsive law school will survive and the students will ultimately determine this. It very well may mean that older, more established law schools will close for failing to change. Lower debt for loans ultimately allows greater access to justice for the general public because lower debt allows the lawyer to make choices, who to service and at what cost. It brings back opportunity for those who get their degree because lower debt means they can choose NOT to practice, too, but utilize their law degree in other ways without feeling as much distress. When you are suffering from crushing debt your choices are few. In addition, if you stop law schools from opening leaving only those which currently exist to have a monopoly on the market, you will make law school the exclusive province of the elite and the existing law schools hold all the cards, along with the ABA who regulates their existence. With an educated consumer of legal education and more choice, the law school marketplace will weed itself in a natural selection process leaving only those schools the students can afford and with an education they can use. The USNWR will have less and less sway as these newer schools opt out of this pointless and ruinous pageant.

Quite frankly, there isn’t a law student or lawyer today who doesn’t know the abysmal job most law schools do. There isn’t a law student or lawyer today who doesn’t know that law school has their own agenda which has nothing to do with placing the majority of their students. God only knows I’ve railed for years ad nauseum on this blog and in newspaper columns about it, especially about career placement offices, false employment numbers and lack of practical training in law school.

Law students should be able to get the whole pie, not half the pie when spending the money they do on their education. They shouldn’t first have to go out and get a job to learn how to be a lawyer. They shouldn’t have to first participate in a mandatory additional one year state mentoring program. They should have the option to immediately practice law because they were given the skills. Whether or not they choose this option, whether or not they feel secure with this option, the option should still be made available to them. But it doesn’t exist. What does exist is unemployment and lawyers out there who want to make use of their education and don’t know how. And when they try without guidance, that’s when costly mistakes are made. Sadly, it won’t exist within law schools for a very long time even with the pressures placed upon them today and even with new schools opening with a mission to be different. Their agenda will always be different than the students’ agenda. That’s a fact.

Don’t try to change the market. Market yourself to be current.

If Wal-Mart or some cultural shift has turned what you do into a commodity, don’t argue. Find a new place before the competition does. It’s not easy or fair, but it’s true. You bet your life.

Which brings us to those who would rail against and demean lawyers, mentors, law students, the legal profession, legal education and any one in any incarnation who tries to help those who ask for help while doing nothing to help themselves. They themselves are the victims of the victim mentality.

There are a few benefits of the victim mentality:

Attention and validation. You can always get good feelings from other people as they are concerned about you and try to help you out. On the other hand, it may not last for that long as people get tired of it.

You don’t have to take risks. When you feel like a victim you tend to not take action and then you don’t have to risk rejection or failure.

Don’t have to take the sometimes heavy responsibility. Taking responsibility for you own life can be hard work, you have to make difficult decisions and it is just heavy sometimes. In the short term it can feel like the easier choice to not take personal responsibility.

It makes you feel right. When you feel like the victim and like everyone else – or just someone else – is wrong and you are right then that can lead to pleasurable feelings. (Full post here.)

Almost half of all private practicing attorneys today are solos. These lawyers generally have evolved on their own, some with major success, some with moderate success, some with minimal success and some with failure. But they are no one’s victim. That’s the way it works in law and in life.

In today’s economy there are no sure things. There are no handouts. There are no free rides. The only lawyers who will succeed, BigLaw or solo, are those with fortitude, self-reliance and NO victim mentality despite too many law schools, too many graduates and false employment numbers.

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel

Law Schools Waking Up – Dumping 3rd Year Curriculum For the Practical

Susan Cartier Liebel — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:51:55 +0000

I woke up this morning and smiled from ear-to-ear as I read this article. And buried in there was a jewel..

“A lot of the changes are in response to the marketplace,” said David Van Zandt, dean of Northwestern University School of Law. “Students are concerned about getting jobs, and everybody wants to be relevant.”

Graduates face stiff competition for law firm positions, and clients are balking at footing the bill to train new attorneys. Consequently, law school leaders consider it more important than ever to send students into the profession armed with practical skills, not just extensive knowledge of case law and legal theory. More law schools are modifying coursework and adding practical classes to help students develop the skills past graduates have had the luxury of learning on the job. In that vein, a growing number of law schools are emphasizing teamwork, leadership, professional judgment and the ability to view issues from the clients’ perspective.

“I think we are at a moment of historical change across the landscape of legal education,” said Washington and Lee Dean Rodney A. Smolla. “When we look back at this period in five to 10 years, we will mark it as the time when the whole mission of law schools made a fundamental turn.”

Some who have already graduated may say, ‘too little, too late’ but at least it is happening. Now when they offer graduates who are struggling some much needed assistance through their alumni programs then we know the schools have really recognized they can’t ever go back to the old ways.

I’d like to suggest a few more changes:

Bring on more adjuncts who can bring practical knowledge
Give the adjuncts a say on curriculum and a ‘vote’ on other matters relating to the overall education
Tell the ABA to wake up and not screw it up with their political bulls#$t when creative and pioneering schools take the lead in revamping their programs
Denouncing U.S. News and World Reports lists and tell the law schools to no longer participate. ABA should create their own top list with input from students!!!

I wrote this CT Law Tribune article more than 3 years ago denouncing the law school curriculum.

What do you think? Let’s keep the discussion going on this. It’s too important to let slide by.

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel