Reportedly the interest in law school stems from the political climate (about as inviting as coastal Louisiana in July) and the supposition that law is relatively safe from AI-induced slaughter. Old Guy continues to recommend trade school instead. Or emigration.
The law schools, of course, are delighted to have their pick of student-loan conduits. This rising tide will lift all boats, from Yale's yacht to Cooley's coble.
When your dumb little venture of enrolling in law school turns out as badly as anyone with a brain can predict, don't come crying to Old Guy.
In the meantime, Golden Gate is trying to rise from the ashes as a California-accredited über-über-toilet. Just what the world needs…
The reason people are doing this is because white collar work is such a scam today. Might as well try to be lawyer than a stupid corporate drone.
ReplyDeleteWe have heard that countless times. Yet becoming a stupid lawyer is not necessarily better than becoming a stupid corporate drone. The corporate drone also avoids hundreds of thousands of dollars for law school.
DeleteIt's not necessarily better but what do you expect? Corporate America is a joke and the juice isn't worth the squeeze. And they get their debt by overpaying for undergrad so really, what's the problem with adding a shit ton more from a practical perspective? It's all junk debt away.
DeleteStudent loans are indeed a big scam, but starting adult life with unmanageable debt is a bad idea. And corporate hell is horrible, but law isn't exactly the Elysian fields either.
DeleteI get that but it's not the 2000s anymore where corporate America is what most of these would be lawyers should have done instead of being scammed is a good option. Now, it's all one big scam and law does at least have some winners. Corporate really doesn't anymore.
DeleteGolden Gate University being California Bar Accredited means
ReplyDeleteThe State Bar of California Committee of Bar Examiners has also established a five-year cumulative pass rate requirement of 40% for all California Accredited Law Schools. Since the law school will have less rigid standards and the law degree only will allow you to take the California Bar Exam, let's see how much they will cut tuition
Golden Gate touts itself now as a cheap alternative to ABA-accredited law schools. Recent propaganda from this defunct über-toilet contrasts its allegedly low cost with the high debt run up to attend an ABA-accredited school. Yes, but the prospects for graduates are very different, too. And Golden Gate had no compunction a year or two ago about charging for that accreditation that it now derides.
DeleteUsually, the reason tuition is lower (often MUCH lower, like 5k/yr) at the unaccredited schools is because they just can't charge more without the loans, because the department of education does not recognize the California bar as an accrediting authority.
DeleteHowever, if you are not a standalone law school and instead are attached to a broader undergraduate institution (as GGU is) then department of education DOES recognize THAT accreditation and does NOT demand that each and every program be accredited by recognized authorities, except for healthcare fields because of medicare/caid.
So I think that GGU may be able to rely on its other non-law school accreditations to continue to collect student loans for a resurrected calbar incarnation of their law school. If that is so, then nothing controls the price other than student savviness and their own conscience.
They can charge less also because their expenses are lower. The professor's salaries are lower, they aren't held to the ABA's library requirements, and their physical footprint is usually much reduced. Some state accredited law schools are just leased space in office parks with most classroom instruction done remotely.
DeleteSo why would someone want to attend as school that can only grant licensure in one state? For some, when the one state is California, there is a lot of appeal in the prospect of becoming a California lawyer.
Well 12:52, I certainly agree that if you only want to practice in CA AND you don't expect anyone to hire you (i.e. you're going to hang a shingle) then a calbar school could be the right choice.
DeleteBut law schools are a business like any other: Tuition is whatever people are willing and able to pay. With student loans, what people are able to pay is much higher than what the market would bear without them. I suppose the costs of maintaining ABA factor in somewhat (and that is certainly what GGU is saying). But I think it's mostly driven by what people will or won't be able to pay which varies drastically depending on Title IV eligibility.
Only 21% of graduates of state-accredited law schools in California pass the bar exam. Many people who enroll never graduate.
DeleteState-accredited schools are simply predatory, in Old Guy's appraisal. They're a good deal worse than Cooley, Appalachian, Southern University, and all the rest of the ABA's slag heap.
California's unaccredited dives are worse still. Nine "students" in ten fail to graduate, and only 9% of the graduates ever pass a bar exam (often only after multiple attempts). That's about a 1% chance of becoming a lawyer (of sorts).
@1:29 That theory makes some sense, that if loans are available to cover the tuition, then price would not not be a factor. It doesn't make complete sense because the loans still have to be repaid, so price should still be a factor.
DeleteBut in my unscientific research of non-ABA accredited law schools, the tuition is much less than ABA accredited schools. 50% less maybe more. This is a big draw for the schools, although I don't know how many students accepted to a 4th tier ABA toilet would defer to a non-ABA for the lower tuition. People are stupid but not so stupid as to pay the same for an non ABA school as an ABA one. But stupid enough to pay for a 4th tier ABA, which often charge almost as much as HYS, so go figure.
All these chumps entering law school now will be depressed in about 3 months when their fall 1L grades come out and their Biglaw dreams get crushed….
ReplyDelete" This rising tide will lift all boats, from Yale's yacht to Cooley's coble."
ReplyDeleteThe ABA put Cooley on probation so I don't think even in increase in applications can save it. And unlike Golden Gate Toilet Law School they cannot opt for state accreditation standards. Unless Cooley moves its campus to California by renting out a room a strip mall.
It's true that the feckless ABA recently put Cooley on probation. Old Guy bets that the ABA will give the über-toilet yet another chance. Cooley already claims to have met the threshold of 75% this year, after many years of falling short (and at least five years of extensions).
DeleteIndeed, the margin of era is super thin. One B+ grade or below in a law school that is not a T14 and Big Law is completely off the table for the rest of your career.
ReplyDeleteIt gets even worse. The average tenure of a first-year associate in a large law firm is 4Y. Many will toil away, get to the top of the class, get that fabled job, and their "career" in big law will be over in 24-36 months. Oh and the big bucks? A number of years ago the salary for a first year in a large law firm was 190K. Working 70 hours a week--something which is not uncommon in law firms where people sleep in their office, work every weekend etc.--that comes to about $50 per hour, pre tax. During that same time period, the Public Defender's Office in my jurisdiction was paying "Panel Attorneys" $50 per hour, and had a hard time finding anyone willing to work for such a low pay rate. Finally, the "exit options" for a lawyer who gets a poor performance review and is shown the door after, say, 3-5Y are not good at all. Even if you grab the brass ring of big law, it won't be all it's cracked up to be, and that ring is likely to slip from your fingers in just a few years.
DeleteSee that’s the thing, goingto big law is such a big and tiring grind of constantly trying to be better than your peers. First you have to fight to get into biglaw by either trying to get into a T14 or being at the top of your class at your law school. Then once you are in big law, you have to overwork your peers in order to be considered for partner. This life does not sound sustainable for me.
DeleteRegardng the panel PDs; often that $50/hour is capped at an arbitrary total amount that prevents adequate representation. For example, a cap of 3K for a felony case where-heaven forbid!-the client may be grossly over-charged or even not guilty....but who wants to do a week long trial, never mind even a cursory pre-trial investigation, for $3K?
ReplyDeleteA one-week trial probably takes three weeks of preparation, not to mention appearances before the matter goes up. That's a lot of work for $3k.
DeleteI am skeptical though about the comment that the poster's PD office had trouble finding enough court appointed attorneys. I thought that in most locales, that despite the relatively large numbers of court appointed counsel needed, that the supply of lawyers seeking such work still even exceeded those actually selected. The reasons for the degree of interest being 1) the glut of lawyers and lack of legal work elsewhere, 2) the appeal of being one's own boss and 3) the perception of gaining experience towards a more lucrative general criminal defense practice. But I may be wrong. Do you have any insight Old Guy?
Delete10:19 back again; can't add anything to 8:56's comments, but I lived mine. The local PD used to show up at the local bar association meetings, at first begging and then threatening to get panel attorneys. It got so bad that the chief judge posted a letter on the county bar association website, basically telling all attorneys that they had an ethical obligation to take the cases. And he strongly suggested he was taking names.
DeleteAnd our area had a ton of private criminal defense attorneys, so taking the assigned cases wouldn't get you anywhere professionally...except off the chief judge's list, maybe.
And-again-why the reluctance to take the cases? 1. In our jd, if you entered your appearance you were stuck-as in almost never would you be allowed to withdraw and 2. felony cases were capped at $3k with no admin or investigative support. So if you had a client who maybe,, just maybe, was not guilty, you did your own investigation and ended up with a jury trial.
And forgot to mention: you couldn't bill for travel time or time sitting in court-only for the actual time your case was called. And the local ADAs knew this, so they intentionally did not call assigned PD cases until the very end of the docket. So an arraignment docket starting at 9a could easily have you sitting until 11am.
They did eventually raise their rate to $60 per hour, and I think it may be $75 per hour for major felony work. That said, while there is a glut of lawyers, I personally quit taking cases from them many years ago, and so did many other lawyers I know. The low pay, the capped hours, waiting months to get paid, and even getting post-convicted by disgruntled criminals. . .there are far too many downsides. A vaguely competent solo criminal defense attorney can make $1,200 in about 10 minutest doing a quick DUI plea in private practice. Oh, and that doesn't mean $800 after taxes and withholdings, like with a paycheck, that means a full $1,200 straight into your Operating Account. In fact, that same lawyer can then go home, do some grocery shopping, some housework, maybe take a nap and then go to another courthouse for the afternoon docket and get another $800-$1,500 depending on the nature of the case. The trouble is getting enough of those clients to sign the dotted line: in my jurisdiction, a person charged with DUI may get 25 solicitations in the mail from lawyers, because as you pointed out, there are far too many lawyers chasing far too few paying clients these days. In addition, believe it or not, loneliness and boredom can become an issue for solos with too much time on their hands.
DeleteYes, lawyers get stuck with cases that they cannot dump, even though they are not being paid (or are not being paid much). One might get a few thousand dollars for hundreds of hours of work, all while dealing with an obnoxious and unappreciative client. Understandably, lawyers are cautious about taking these matters on.
DeleteIf there is a shortage of panel lawyers it is because lawyers are not aware of the opportunities or that they are being denied in the application/screening process. Probably for lack of foreign language (Spanish) ability. Many lawyers would work for the $50/hour and put in unpaid time on top of it.
DeleteEvery jurisdiction is different, but no shortage of attorneys in mine...but nobody wants these cases. It's not the hourly rate, it's the artificial cap, no support. And the bill is submitted to the local PD which then takes weeks to pay-after redlining much of the submitted bill. You then have to submit an appeal to the district PD. It's a months-long project. The result is that even desperate solos-as I was-take one case because there's a better than not chance of getting only partial pay months later.
DeleteSo no. it wasn't language and everyone had been lectured on their ethical duty to take these cases. It was the fact that the pay wasn't just lousy...it was likely you wouldn't get anything more than partial pay months later. Even desperate solos like myself couldn't afford to work for no pay.
Lawyers who speak Spanish proficiently, such as Old Guy, should be paid extra when the skill is required. If Spanish and legal skills are both required for a poxy little job that doesn't even pay for the hours worked, count Old Guy out.
Delete@8:44 Who is it that is lecturing and threatening attorneys to take panel work? It would have to be directed at attorneys that have some kind of practice already and are involved with the court system. What kind of leverage could they have over an unemployed or non practicing lawyer without trial experience? Non practicing lawyers have little contact with the judiciary beyond paying annual dues. I would also be surprised if they have ever taken out any of these threats as some kind of disciplinary action.
DeleteNo idea why you posted your comment; the thread was about panel assignments and why even desperate solos shunned them. And yes, judges lecture all the time about "ethics" and "professional responsibility". Of course if you are an unemployed and/or non-practicing attorney, none of this applies to you. But if you appear in court trying to make a living, it does make a difference.
DeleteI think that answers it. The judges in your jurisdiction are asking, nicely at first, experienced criminal defense solos to take on some quasi pro bono cases. At first is sounded like they were advertising that they had plenty of work at $50/hr but there were no takers. Inexperienced lawyers need not apply.
DeleteI just saw this on reddit. Is it ok to go to law school now?/s.
ReplyDeleteLaw business is booming ... hard to believe, but finally ... there's not enough attorneys!:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/comments/1ojo5l3/law_business_is_booming_hard_to_believe_but/
I think it's crazy that people are apparently not doing any kind of research into their future career choice. With the internet these days, how hard is it to find out that law is most probably not their best choice?
DeletePeople tend to believe whatever they want to, with no regard for the truth. It's called "wishful thinking". They will literally say, 1) my college degree in Philosophy led me to working as a pizza deliveryman Domino's, so more education must the answer 2) Practicing law must be a cool, sexy profession filled with wealthy, powerful, beautiful people pursuing justice, 'cause that's what it looks like on TV shows. They also say other dumb stuff like "I'm terrible at math" and "I want to help people". "I'm terrible at math" is code for "I'm stupid", BTW. There is a vast pool of JD's. . .and a rather small number of good lawyers. That has been the case for a very long time.
DeleteOld Guy has said for years that 80% of the bar should be purged tomorrow.
DeleteHere's a feel-good story...at least she saved herself from the desperation of legal practice:
Deletehttps://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2025-11-08/kim-kardashian-california-bar-exam-results
Thats nonsense. Law is still extremely saturated. In fact it will get even worse in a few years when AI will decimated the legal profession.
ReplyDeletePatent law is super saturated and in decline. The number of job listings has gone down by 50% in the last 10 years. If you're small molecule pharma or some form of EE, you're ok. Everything else is just a race to the bottom.
DeleteFactually, people spend 4Y in college, then 3Y in law school, and take and pass a challenging two day Bar exam, so they can work for $22-$26 per hour, pre-tax, doing "temporary document review projects". I think that a lot of people aren't sincerely interested in pursuing a career, they just want to avoid real life, and spend 7Y subsisting on student loans while the rest of us have to work for a living. That's the real reason there is an uptick in applications to law school.
ReplyDeleteNo, that's not it. The market is beyond oversaturated and lots of law schools need to close. Closing fifty would be a nice start to helping fix this mess but no one has the guts politically. I definitely didn't go to law school to avoid being an adult or working for a living. I never found a career in the field because the market cannot absorb the numbers of graduates. It's terrible public policy and continues which is the tragedy. Our labor markets over the next decade will get even more competitive for entry level work with robotics and AI making it cheaper to replace people. The most valuable resource a civilization has should be the humans that live - but that era seems to be coming to an end with technology and money dominating all other ethical values.
DeleteThe reasons must be more numerous and more complex than that. Some people just take advantage of the easy student loans that they never repay: we have seen people admit this. Others expect a career in law but cannot establish one, for different reasons. Altogether too many people are going into law, and the law schools keep admitting people who have no business there.
DeleteLaw school, at least traditionally, was a grueling, negative experience. I don't buy that. If the outcomes were the same, I would rather do almost anything than attend a law/dental/medical school.
DeleteMedical school was still a black box as recently as 2005, so the idea of "I like school" was still a plausible delusion.
If you haven't figured out that AI is going to end up putting entire law firms out of business in the coming years, you might as well max out your student loan balance on a TTT degree. No advice is going to reach you.
ReplyDeleteYes, AI will surely negatively impact the American legal industry. But I reckon it would “only” permanently uproot 45-46% of attorney jobs, and 80-85% of paralegal jobs within the next 4-5 years…
DeleteTo me eliminating lawyers would mean non lawyers doing the work the lawyers now do and I don't clearly see how AI does that at this point. This applies to other fields too, medical, even working on a car. I think AI can prepare people more on the issues that affect them personally, but at this point a professional will still have to be hired to complete the process.
DeleteThe use of AI in patent legal work is apparently starting in Europe:
Deletehttps://www.linkedin.com/posts/jamie-fraser-a34065b1_it-was-bound-to-happen-at-some-point-but-activity-7394410352161103872-pwz8/
I wouldn’t bet against AI eventually doing lawyer work within the next 4-5 years, if the currently trajectory of AI is anything to go by. Six years ago, AI systems had the equivalent intelligence of an average high school graduate. Now, the same systems reportedly possess the intelligence of a college graduate. Who knows whether future AI tech would be able to, at least, assist with crafting legal arguments with the proper case law citations.
Delete