Hoo-boy. From TFL:
The University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law now offers a Master of Science in Law aimed at non-lawyers. The website states that the "degree [is] for professionals who want to know more about the intersection of law and regulation with the technical, scientific or administrative demands of their chosen fields." The subject matter include Environmental Law, Health Care Law, and Patent Law...
The MSL is a degree in law for professionals who do not wish to practice law, but have a job where a knowledge of the law is useful. For example, there are quasi-legal positions such as Contracting Officer for the U.S. Government where a background in the cognizant statutes and regulations would be beneficial. The same could be said for those in the securities industry...this could be a way to counter the decline in law school enrollment, which is currently flat.
A suggestion I have for UMD specifically is to consider offering an MSL in Dispute Resolution. The Law School has a renowned Center for Dispute Resolution. The field of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) often has non-legal professionals practicing in a legal environment...
Here we go again. The desire to render degrees of the of the not-JD-variety continues to proliferate, for the above-mentioned reasons: law school enrollment has declined and remains flat currently, and a multitude of whiz-bang LT FT JD-required jobs continues to not appear.
So why fight it, reasons the Cartel. Go with the flow. The market has spoken, so respond in kind with an alternate product.
As I stated in my related post some three years ago, this "go to law school specifically for JD-Advantage reasons" is too little, too late for many who are already burdened with the smokin' bucketfull of awesome that is otherwise known as the Juris Doctor degree. While the Law School Cartel keeps trying to say "no, really, the scambloggers don't know anything, Law School is still a really great idea," they are clearly hedging their bets by offering these "non-JD" degrees at the same time. Interestingly, there is not a lot of evidence that these programs were in high-demand previously, when the higher-priced Cadillac JD degree was the only game in town.
Actions speak louder than words.
One advantage, to be fair, is cost: the UM MSL degree is 30 credit hours at around $800 per hour - a mere $24,000.00 investment, possibly something one could do while working in their day job in environmental, health care, or patent matters (whatever that would be). For those looking for a credential, who are already working in regulated fields, perhaps an employer could be persuaded to pay for an employee's further education.
At the end of all, however, one still has to question the value, even at a reduced price. There is no practicing law with these degrees, although perhaps that was a pipe-dream anyway for many so who cares. Would employers rather have a MSL candidate over a JD candidate? Possibly - the MSL does not appear to come with "Scarlett Letters," as we have often stated the JD does not offer the flexibility/transferability that the Cartel would have one believe. Are that many employers in regulated industries really looking for an "LLM-Light," however? That remains to be seen, yet it seems unlikely - many folks learn on the job, and there are whole industry-specific businesses that cater to, train and educate those who work in said fields, not unlike the CLE classes we all know and love.
On a personal note: I am sick to death of ADR. I, in my JD-Advantage capacity, have been to enough mediations, arbitrations, and trials to know one thing - give me my trial. Most disputes where ADR comes into play involve money, plain and simple. You are not going to get people to agree by splitting the baby (when it's no one's actual baby in the first instance), which is what happens 95% of the time. ADR is not helping me, it hinders me and wastes my time, and prevents me from asserting the claims and defenses I want to assert in favor of someone else's "judicial efficiency." So stop it with all the ADR concentration-MSL-LLM mamby-pamby crap, and let's get back down to the business of actually trying cases. Thank you.
One thing is for certain - whatever the Cartel tries to say, they are feeling the pinch of lack-of-demand. JDs are not roaring back, schools are teetering, and another income stream is needed to help offset declining balance sheets. The rise of the "MSL" indicates the decline of the JD, full stop.
The best bet for all concerned? Avoid all this, in its entirety, unless someone else is paying for it.
Oh please, give me a break! Nobody will register for this cr*p.
ReplyDeleteIt would be so much more efficient to create a free youtube channel "for professionals who want to know more about the intersection of law and regulation with the technical, scientific or administrative demands of their chosen fields." One could invite real professionals to give 15-30 minute presentations on the various topics, and people who successfully view enough of these videos (and, maybe, do some extra legwork) can get a certificate.
If a JD is worth a million bucks, a Master of Science in Law **has** to be worth at least half a million bucks.
ReplyDeletePeople "who want to know more about" something read a book; they don't get a fucking master's degree without even knowing the rudiments.
ReplyDeleteImagine a master's degree in architecture for people who can't tell the Ionic order from the Doric. Or a master's in math for people who don't know the multiplication table.
This "Master of Science in Law" merely panders to a taste for prestige. It's of no professional or academic value whatsoever; it merely enables the bearer to claim a master's degree. As a source of prestige, however, this worthless degree is about as advantageous as a diploma mill's PhD.
And alternative dispute resolution is indeed highly overrated. Most of the "non-legal professionals" in this "field" merely propose to split the difference. A fat lot of good that does.
ADR is such a fucking scam. All that money going to overpaid mediators whose sum contribution is generally something along the lines of "And how does that make you feel?" I've attended a lot of mediations in my almost 20 years of practice, and have seen mediation work exactly once in all that time.
DeleteOn another note, my alma mater was taken over by the ADR mafia (none of whom ever seem to have had real jobs in the legal profession) and believe you me, those folks are all about the cash.
Exactly. The whole point of the civil court system, in my view, is to submit a dispute to a decision-maker because the adults themselves were unable to work things out.
DeleteIf it could have been worked out, would there be a suit in the first place (for that matter, what is the sound of one hand clapping, while we're at it)? I would argue no, and all ADR does is prolong and rehash the pain of what the parties have already been through, which leads them back to why they filed. It's arrogance on the part of the ADR-mafia to think, "oh, if they only considered our learned opinions on this, with no real factual understanding of the underlying dispute, there would be no need for a trial at all."
The argument always boils down to "well, hey, look, trial is a crap-shoot and expensive to boot, do you really want to go there? Why not just compromise?" Yep, we knew that option already, thanks. Do you really think we didn't consider that before the court ordered us to spend all day in a conference room?
Really? Mediation is ordered as a matter of law in Florida in ALL of our civil litigation cases. Cases do settle in litigation.... all of the time. Its up to the parties of course.... at the least mediation gets people talking.
DeleteIt's mandatory in Florida and other places because people think it will "help." I guess you could argue that it "does," in that people settle all the time, and the dockets are full to be sure. The question becomes: did ADR do it, or did people just get so strung out and exhausted that one side or the other or both capitulated?
DeleteDid they really get their day in court? Or did they just compromise? Depends on your view, I guess.
It's sometimes helpful for small claims, some types of family-related disputes, and other matters in which one or both parties are unlikely to be represented by counsel.
DeleteAbout 98% of cases—civil and criminal alike—are settled or abandoned. That happens quite without the help of ADR. When both parties are represented, ADR usually doesn't achieve much other than the enrichment of the ADR practitioner, who is likely to be all but useless if not trained in law.
I want to start an ADR outfit where the cases are solved by the old Code Duello.... pistols or sabers.
DeleteOr, how about Inquisitorial Arbitration? Torture both parties and then make a binding decision.
Trial by combat is arguably still available in some states, mainly in the eastern part of the US. It wasn't abolished in England until the first part of the nineteenth century, so it should still be part of the law any jurisdiction that received English law before that time, unless it has been abolished by legislation or jurisprudence or is inconsistent with constitutional law.
DeleteIn practice, of course, it would never be countenanced.
ADR is a scam, but so is litigation.
DeleteLawyers almost always unnecessarily drive-up the cost of litigation for no good reason, other than to extract money from their clients. One great way of doing this is to dangle "treble damages" in front of the client. The client would have to be really sophisticated not to fall for that.
At the end of the day, however, it all boils down to there being too many lawyers. This glut of attorneys has turned us into parasites.
"Lawyers almost always unnecessarily drive-up the cost of litigation"? That's greatly exaggerated. I agree that many lawyers run their bills up or at least show insufficient regard for their clients' financial interests, but many others (myself among them) discourage ill-advised lawsuits, refuse to undertake vexatious actions, advise clients of the costs and risks of litigation, reduce bills without being asked, and perform pro bono work. Certainly I never have "dangled" anything before anyone in an attempt to enrich myself.
Delete@Old Guy -- you've obviously never practiced toilet law.
Delete"It's sometimes helpful for small claims, some types of family-related disputes, and other matters in which one or both parties are unlikely to be represented by counsel. "
DeleteGood point, Old Guy, I'll concede that as part of my ADR-rant.
If it would be advantageous to "have a background" in the sense of having an MSL, there's already a glut of lawyers who have way more background than you that are desperate for gainful employment.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is that outside of actual litigation (ie, opening/closing arguments, jury picking, eliciting testimony, motion practice, depos, etc), lawyers aren't really worth a whole lot. Sadly, almost nothing goes to trial anymore, so lawyers have mostly become glorified paper pushers that are essentially saying "we'll fill out the right forms without making any rookie mistakes." Around the time I quit, I was considering writing a software system that would have automated about 90 percent of my practice, including scouring jail databases to generate marketing material. I would have needed a secretary to hold down the fort while I was in court, but that was about it. But the sad truth is that 99 percent of defendants end up with govt appointed counsel, even for conflict work, so you're automating your way to poverty.
You do not and have never needed legal training (of any kind) to mediate disputes. Successful mediators have good "people skills" like the ability to listen and to empathize, a conciliatory attitude, etc. I never understood why people think legal training is needed or even helpful to the process.
ReplyDelete"You do not and have never needed legal training (of any kind) to mediate disputes" This is just as wrong as the above posts suggesting that mediation is useless. Only a Lawyer who knows how to prepare and try case will get top dollar in mediation and of course a lawyer needs to understand the law to understand the legal issues to consider when settling a case, as well as have experience to understand the pros and cons of going to trial. You guys want to pan the legal profession as a scam...fine...I suppose law school is too expensive and people who go there often drowning in debt... but you have no idea of what you are talking about if you don't think legal training and experience is absolutely essential to having good results in Court cases or in alternative resolution. There are still lawyers who routinely kill it in a courtroom. That is not luck... that is skill. Lawyers who do not know the insides of a courtroom will always settle cheap... and those who do, will always get better settlements than if they did not try cases. Most great trial lawyers though are not born.. they are made, through hard work and effort of LEARNING how to present a case to a jury. I have watched wonderful lawyers turn routine herniated disk cases routinely settling for 25 or 50K into seven figure verdicts. Positive thinking is of course a necessity in this game, as is tenacity, perseverance and effort. Ability is a must, but ability can be obtained through experience.
ReplyDeleteI have watched wonderful lawyers turn routine herniated disk cases routinely settling for 25 or 50K into seven figure verdicts.
DeleteSeven figures start at 1 million dollars. Anyone obtaining that kind of result for routine herniated disk cases will inevitably encounter appeals for excessive awards and that's assuming there is that amount of insurance coverage to begin with, as with auto accidents there usually is not even including plaintiff's underinsured motorist.
I totally agree, but the problem isn't the worthlessness of skill at trial practice, it's just the dearth of opportunities to use that skill. I loved jury trial work, but there's just so little of it.
DeleteIn criminal law, I found it very hard to get cases to go to trial except in a few rare sets of circumstances- 1) client is dead to rights on something horrible and you're just going in there to get beat up so the prosecutor can get a life sentence or 2) the prosecutor pushes forward with a weak case and you can't get it dismissed or plead down. Most of the time your client is dead to rights on something mickey mouse so everyone is eager to make a deal. Your client avoids tons of prison time for something he obviously did and the prosecutor gets to slap a nobody on the wrist for something small time. It's very rare that the prosecutor will push forward with a case they know they stand a decent chance of losing and it's very rare that a murder/carjacking/etc headed for life/cap will not get the PD.
In family, there aren't jury trials and the amount of drama is just too damn high to make it enjoyable.
In civil, it's all mickey mouse stuff unless you specialize in PI and sue companies with deep pockets. As a rule, nobody in civil has anything worth suing over. There are plenty of exceptions, but the rule is what you have to live with on a day to day basis. If someone upper middle class like me can be judgment and garnishment proof, anyone can.
I used to think the same thing until I watched these guys at work. These seven figure awards are based on the evidence, and so never reversed or remitted for the amount of the award alone. A life care plan over twenty or so years, a lost earning capacity claim... the figures build up very quickly. That and the technique used to present the case to the jury. Some trial lawyers are simply gifted or get there through grit. True, most insurance policies don't have that kind of coverage, but in States like Florida with strong bad-faith laws, still can be collected from the insurer. Even without third party bad faith, the insurer can still be liable to the insured for exposing him/her to a large excess judgment by refusing to settle for reasonable dollars... as many insurers these days refuse to do.
DeleteNYU started the trend
ReplyDeletehttp://www.law.nyu.edu/msltax
CPAs like me are not going to pay for a JD, nor this MSL shit.
Mediation is a tool like anything else. Mandating it for all cases with "x" is as stupid as using a screwdriver on every project with "wood." But self-interested gurus are gonna guru.
ReplyDeleteIt's very useful in the right cases - clients with aggressive valuations who need to be told their weaknesses by a third party, uncertain legal theories for two risk-averse sides, etc.
"Mandating it for all cases with "x" is as stupid as using a screwdriver on every project with "wood." But self-interested gurus are gonna guru." Mediation is a very useful tool for avoiding the costs and unpredictability of a trial. That is why it is so often successful. Of course, less successful these days as Insurers are becoming more tight fisted in the wake of all of the attorney advertising and churning of cases.
DeleteYeah...like anyone interested in patent law is going to go for this.
ReplyDeleteFunny you should say that.
DeleteLast night, my friend (an unemployed PhD) told me about one of her former classmates who couldn't go out with us because "he's studying for his law classes." So, what "law classes" is this guy taking?
Ok, this is depressing. I attended UM ls eons ago; it was a solid second level ls, placing a few top grads in top jobs, but the rest of us at least had a chance to get some sort of job as a lawyer, since the school had a solid reputation locally. And it was very, very inexpensive to attend. We even had a smattering of students from across the East Coast, as even out of state tuition was reasonable.
ReplyDeleteFast forward to now: the school is exorbitantly expensive-proposed in-state tuition for 2017 is over 35K in state-and almost 66K OOS(!). This doesn't include the many and various fees/books/living expenses. And its job placement statistics are a horror show; just take a look at the ABA numbers in conjunction with the LST analysis.
And this phoney-baloney, absolutely worthless Master's degree finally and completely cements its status as a scam school.