Something about legal education must pay because David Segal has written a second lengthy piece in three weeks in the New York Times about the topic. Segal argues that the cost of legal services is too high because of the pervasive presence of the American Bar Association as the sole body that accredits law schools and the requirement in most states that one have graduated from an A.B.A.-accredited law school to take the bar exam. Two quick comments: unbundling and bar standards.
Unbundling. Segal correctly points out that what falls under the rubric of "legal services" in America is in many other countries spread across several job classifications. In other words, certain routine activities that in America typically utilize lawyers, such as divorce, use non-lawyer legal professionals in other places in around the world.
It seems we are moving in this direction here. Because of the Internet with do-it-yourself legal forms, many Americans get their legal advice from entities several steps removed from a live lawyer. The quality of this advice can be questionable and sometimes ends up costing its users more than hiring a lawyer would have. Perhaps creating a class of licensed but not-law-school-graduate professionals would be helpful. Yet, given Americans' penchant for "the best" from professions like medicine, I'm not sure that this new class of not-quite lawyers would meet with great demand. But I could be wrong. At any rate, it's an idea worth investigating.
Bar standards: Segal also correctly observes that all but a few states require anyone who takes that state's bar exam to have graduated from an A.B.A.-accredited law school. And he also notes that A.B.A. accreditation imposes substantial costs on a law school, primarily in the form of mandating that a school's courses be taught primarily by full-time faculty.
I teach in a state that does not require its bar exam takers to have gone to an A.B.A.-accredited law school. In fact, Virginia does not require its bar takes to have gone to law school at all. You can read about it starting here. A few other states also do not require formal legal education. Given the opportunity to do an end-around costly legal education, I would have appreciated some comments from Segal. One might particularly like to know why so few prospective lawyers take advantage of it. The vast majority of budding lawyers must perceive some advantage to studying law in an academic environment even with its substantial costs.
In brief, while one might question the place of the A.B.A. at effectively the beginning and at the end of the lawyer entry process, I remain doubtful that removing it as the sole accreditor of law schools and universally eliminating graduation from an A.B.A.-accredited law school as a bar admission requirement would make much difference in the supply of low-cost legal services. Unbundling legal services strikes me as a good idea in theory but I have my doubts that it would have a meaningful impact in practice.
What might reduce the cost of legal eduction? And would it have any impact on the cost of legal services? Some more thoughts later.
Unbundling. Segal correctly points out that what falls under the rubric of "legal services" in America is in many other countries spread across several job classifications. In other words, certain routine activities that in America typically utilize lawyers, such as divorce, use non-lawyer legal professionals in other places in around the world.
It seems we are moving in this direction here. Because of the Internet with do-it-yourself legal forms, many Americans get their legal advice from entities several steps removed from a live lawyer. The quality of this advice can be questionable and sometimes ends up costing its users more than hiring a lawyer would have. Perhaps creating a class of licensed but not-law-school-graduate professionals would be helpful. Yet, given Americans' penchant for "the best" from professions like medicine, I'm not sure that this new class of not-quite lawyers would meet with great demand. But I could be wrong. At any rate, it's an idea worth investigating.
Bar standards: Segal also correctly observes that all but a few states require anyone who takes that state's bar exam to have graduated from an A.B.A.-accredited law school. And he also notes that A.B.A. accreditation imposes substantial costs on a law school, primarily in the form of mandating that a school's courses be taught primarily by full-time faculty.
I teach in a state that does not require its bar exam takers to have gone to an A.B.A.-accredited law school. In fact, Virginia does not require its bar takes to have gone to law school at all. You can read about it starting here. A few other states also do not require formal legal education. Given the opportunity to do an end-around costly legal education, I would have appreciated some comments from Segal. One might particularly like to know why so few prospective lawyers take advantage of it. The vast majority of budding lawyers must perceive some advantage to studying law in an academic environment even with its substantial costs.
In brief, while one might question the place of the A.B.A. at effectively the beginning and at the end of the lawyer entry process, I remain doubtful that removing it as the sole accreditor of law schools and universally eliminating graduation from an A.B.A.-accredited law school as a bar admission requirement would make much difference in the supply of low-cost legal services. Unbundling legal services strikes me as a good idea in theory but I have my doubts that it would have a meaningful impact in practice.
What might reduce the cost of legal eduction? And would it have any impact on the cost of legal services? Some more thoughts later.
No comments:
Post a Comment