As law school class sizes continue to shrink, whether due to students’ lack of interest in acquiring six figures of debt or law schools “right-sizing” to maintain student quality, something has got to give so there’s enough money to keep the lights on.
But layoffs are harsh, so clearly the next best thing is to politely ask faculty members to purge their presence from the wonderful world of gainful employment in the ivory tower — with some additional monetary incentive to sweeten the pot.
Which law school is asking its tenure-track faculty members to quit for the greater good?
UPDATE (3/26/2014, 9:30 a.m.): Please note the UPDATE added below.
Tenured or not, members of the ivory tower used to feel like they had reached a point in their legal careers where they had a good amount of job security. That was before the recession. Now, it seems they’re ready to poop their pedagogical pantaloons at a moment’s notice for fear of layoffs.
Well, we hope the professors at the law school we’re about to tell you about have a change of pants, because the dean thinks it’s time to flush out some faculty members. There aren’t any buyouts to be had — we’re talking straight-up law prof layoffs.
Which school is decimating its law professor headcount this time?
I think his primary prescriptive advice — in essence, our problems will be cured with the passage of time — is naive and potentially dangerous to those who follow it.
– IU Law professor William Henderson, eviscerating the stupid arguments of WNEU Law professor Professor René Reich-Graefe so I don’t have to. Reich-Graefe went with the whole “lawyers are retiring” and “people need legal services” claims that appeal to prospective law students who aren’t thinking critically about the future market for legal services. If you don’t know why listening to Reich-Graefe’s wishcasting is “dangerous,” Henderson explains it all on Legal Whiteboard.
The debate over “practice ready” legal education continues. Some schools aggressively tout their new clinics and secretly (or not-so-secretly) hoped that the ABA would let them abolish tenure altogether so they can start exclusively hiring cheaper instructors. Opponents defend the difficult position that a hundred-year-old educational model based around cloistered professors should be left more or less untouched.
That’s why articles that take unique, nuanced approaches — like tackling the issue from the perspective of encouraging professors, rather than students, to take time out to practice in the “real world” — are so intriguing. Here comes another one from a professor who attacks a lot of the underlying premises in this debate by really asking what a practice-ready education would really look like.
The answer is a lot more like med school, which is probably not going to make a lot of people happy….
Another day, another law school administrator talking out of both sides of his mouth. Sure, his law school is reducing its faculty numbers because there isn’t enough tuition money to pay their salaries, but everything is going to be fine. According to this dean, “I think the market is coming back and we are stabilizing. I think the future looks bright for us.”
Which law school is politely pushing its older faculty members out the door this time?
* Justice Elena Kagan is looking forward to hunting a new kind of game next year with Justice Antonin Scalia. Gobble gobble, bitches. They’re going after wild turkeys, and not the whiskey. [Legal Times]
* If you’ve been wondering why Morrison & Foerster is referred to as MoFo, the backstory isn’t as cool as we were led to believe. It was the firm’s teletype address. [Capital Business / Washington Post]
* Don’t worry, law profs, your precious tenure protections aren’t going anywhere yet. The ABA has officially given up on its quest to remove tenure as an accreditation requirement. [National Law Journal]
* If you’ve been waitlisted, send a letter of continuing interest. Convince them you’ll be employed within 10 months of graduation, and watch the acceptance letters roll on in. [Law Admissions Lowdown / U.S. News]
The first rule of state court is: you do not talk about state court.
* Foreclosure attorney Bruce Richardson alleges that Hogan Lovells partner David Dunn hit him with a briefcase in front of a court officer. That’s how they roll in state court. (Expect more on this later.) [New York Daily News; New York Post]
* From cop killer to nomination killer: Mumia’s the word that stopped Debo Adegbile’s nomination to lead the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. [Washington Post]
* In happier nomination news, congratulations to former Breyer clerk Vince Chhabria, as well as to Beth Freeman and James Donato, on getting confirmed to the federal bench for the Northern District of California. [San Francisco Chronicle]
A few days ago, Elie Mystal wrote about recent allegations of racist student conduct at the UCLA School of Law. I invite readers unfamiliar with the background to catch up by reading Elie’s post and, if you’ve the stomach for it, some of the many comments on his post. (It’s okay. I’ll wait.)
UCLA Dean Rachel Moran called for a police investigation. She alerted the student body. She agreed to meet with student leaders. From all I can see, the law school administration has so far handled the events appropriately. The official response balances the risk of dismissing the allegations or their importance with the risk of over-reacting and potentially polarizing the campus further.
I disagree with much of Elie’s criticism of the law school as a whole, as I disagreed with him about the Team Sanders situation at UCLA last fall.
Still, I didn’t originally want to write about UCLA this week. I drafted a post on another topic, in fact. But something about the UCLA situation, Elie’s post, and, perhaps most of all, the responses from many readers gnawed away at me. It hurt my heart. And when the desiccated husk that passes for my world-weary heart hurts, there’s usually something to it . . . .
Ed. note: Please welcome Above the Law’s new poet-in-residence, Qui Tam.
Qui Tam. Short for a Latin phrase that means, more or less, self-righteously suing alongside the King, and keeping a little on the side for yourself. More commonly known today as a whistleblower action, where a private individual with knowledge of fraud gets sheltered by the feds and a nice cut of the penalties imposed for said fraud. So basically the same idea in Latin and common parlance.
For purposes of this column — which will be a collection of observational “poems,” chronicling experiences the writer may or may not have had during a pretty vanilla T1 law school and corporate legal career — what I am going for is the “whistleblower” allusion (quite self-flattering, not to mention self-righteous). Oh, and the pretentious use of Latin is designed to create a sense of sophistication where one probably doesn’t exist (sorry Bryan Garner, but it is true).
Ed. note: The Asia Chronicles column is authored by Kinney Recruiting. Kinney has made more placements of U.S. associates, counsels and partners in Asia than any other recruiting firm in each of the past seven years. You can reach them by email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
It’s that time of year again when JDs are starting to apply for 2L summer jobs and 2L summers are deciding which practice area to focus on.
For those JDs with an interest in potentially lateraling to or transferring to Asia in the future, please feel free to reach out to Kinney for advice on firm choices, interviewing and practice choices, relating to future marketability in Asia, or for a general discussion on your particular Asia markets of interest. This is of course a free of cost service for those who some years in the future may be our future industry contacts or perhaps even clients.
For some years now Kinney’s Asia head, Evan Jowers, has been formally advising Harvard Law students with such questions, as the Asia expert in Harvard Law’s “Ask The Experts Market Program” each summer and fall, with podcasts and scheduled phone calls. This has been an enjoyable and productive experience for all involved.
If you are considering a virtual law practice, you know that many of today’s solo firms started that way. But why are established, multi-attorney law firms going virtual?
Many small firms are successfully moving part—or even all—of their practice to a virtual setting. This even includes multi-jurisdictional practice spanning several states and practice areas, although solo and small partnerships are still the largest adopters of virtual law.
Can you do the same? The new article Mobile in Practice, Virtual by Design from author Jared Correia, Esq., explores how mobile technology bring real-life benefits to a small law firm. Read this new article—the next in Thomson Reuters’ Independent Thinking series for small firms—to explore how a mobile practice:
Reduces malpractice risk
Enables you to gather the best attorneys to fit the firm, regardless of each person’s geographic location
Leverages mobile devices and cloud technology to enable on-the-spot client and prospect communication
Transitioning in-house is something many (if not most) firm lawyers find themselves considering at some point. For many, it’s the first step in their career that isn’t simply a function of picking the best option available based on a ranking system.
Unknown territory feels high-risk, and can have the effect of steering many of us towards the well-greased channels into large, established companies.
For those who may be open to something more entrepreneurial, there is far less information available. No recruiter is calling every week with offers and details.
In sponsorship with Betterment, ATL and David Lat will moderate a panel about life in-house and we’ll hear from GCs at Birchbox, Gawker Media, Squarespace, Bonobos, and Betterment. Drinks, snacks, networking, and a great time guaranteed. Invite your colleagues, but RSVP fast, as space is limited.