Virtual Interviews Continue for Law Students Applying to Summer Associate Positions

Law360 just released its annual Summer Associates Survey. This year’s survey, with responses from over 1,000 current law students (predominantly in their first and second years), examines the process by which students match with summer associate positions at law firms, specifically the interviewing process, firm selection criteria by students, and the impact of COVID-19 on summer internships.

Interviews 

On average, students reported applying to 17 firms for summer associate positions (with a median of ten). Through on-campus interview bids, students received an average of 5 interviews during early interview week (with a median of two). Overall, the average success rate of obtaining an interview was 34 percent, although 30 percent of applicants did not receive any interviews during early interview week. 

Five law schools (of the 29 with data published) had success rates of students garnering interviews of over 50 percent. They were Harvard (66 percent), Columbia (61 percent), NYU (5800 percent), UCLA (54 percent), and UC Berkeley (53 percent). NYU students, on average, received the highest number of interviews per student at 15.7, followed by Columbia (14.0), UCLA (12.6), and Harvard (12.4). 

The majority of respondents reported that all of their summer associateship interviews were remote, although at 69 percent, the number has decreased significantly from 82 percent last year.

Student Selection Criteria

Among the criteria for selecting a firm for a summer associateship, students ranked “practice areas available” as the most important (54 percent), followed by geography (51 percent), firm reputation (39 percent), and culture advertised (36 percent). Just about one-third (34 percent) viewed the option to report virtually to the associateship, with no need to physically relocate, as important or very important. 

Student Support

Students were most likely to rely significantly on their law school’s career services office (26 percent) to navigate the law firm selection process. However, they also said they rely on alumni working in firms as associates (20 percent) and friends working at firms (19 percent) as key resources.

While about two-thirds of respondents (61 percent) said that their law school prepared them for on-campus interviewing with mock summer associate interviews, the remainder said they did not (39 percent). 

Covid-19 Impacts

While the effects of the pandemic are still present for some 2022 summer associates, the impact is decreasing in scale. Almost all students, 92 percent, said that, if given the option, they would report to the office for their 2022 summer internship. 

When asked how the covid-19 pandemic has affected their summer associateship programs:

• One-third of respondents reported that they believe covid-19 has hindered their ability to network with attorneys at potential internship firms in a moderate to significant way, which is a sharp decline from 58 percent last year. 

• About a quarter of respondents, 24 percent, said they will be working in a hybrid role this summer (part virtual, part in-person), and 9 percent will work fully remote. 

• 37 percent said that during their interview process, they encountered a firm that would allow them to report virtually to the internship while living in a different city, whereas the remaining 63 percent did not receive such an offer. 

Student Concerns

Students’ biggest concerns going into their summer associate positions are an inability to connect with colleagues/mentors due to remote work (25 percent), not being up to the workload (25 percent), and not getting hired at the conclusion of the summer position (24 percent). 

Find the full report here. 

ABA to Vote on Recommendation that Would Allow Law Schools to Drop Admissions Test Requirement

Later this month, the American Bar Association will vote on a recommendation by its Strategic Review Committee to eliminate the requirement that all law schools must include standardized testing as a component of admissions. Should the recommendation be accepted, it would not take effect until next year (at the earliest) and would allow individual law schools the option to remove or retain current testing requirements. The current standard states that all law schools “shall require” applicants to submit scores from a “valid and reliable admission test,” which in November of 2021 was expanded to include the GRE, in addition to the LSAT. 

The revision language notes that, “While a law school may still choose to use one or more admissions tests as part of sound admission practices or policies, the revisions require a law school to identify all tests that it accepts in its admissions policies so that applicants to the law school know which admissions tests are accepted.” It goes on to describe that accepting the recommendation “eliminates some of the challenges inherent in determining which tests are in fact valid and reliable for law school admission,” although law schools that continue to use an admissions test would need to show that the test is in line with “sound admissions practices and procedures.” The Strategic Review Committee’s language also notes that, as of early 2022, the Council is the only remaining “accreditor among law, medical, dental, pharmacy, business, and architecture school accreditors that required an admissions test in its Standards.” This suggests that the change in language may not greatly impact the current practice of requesting test scores from applicants, particularly among highly-competitive programs. 

The Law School Admission Council (LSAC), which oversees the LSAT and is independent from the ABA, said in a statement, “Studies show test-optional policies often work against minoritized individuals, so we hope the ABA will consider these issues very carefully. We believe the LSAT will continue to be a vital tool for schools and applicants for years to come, as it is the most accurate predictor of law school success and a powerful tool for diversity when used properly as one factor in a holistic admission process.”

It will be necessary to follow news from the ABA over the next couple of weeks to see how the Council will proceed. Bill Adams, Managing Director of the ABA Accreditation and Legal Education, said in a statement that “Issues concerning admissions policies have been of concern to the Council for several years.” He went on to explain that the Council will discuss the recommendation on May 20, and determine if a vote is in order or if further circulation and comment will be required.

AccessLex Institute Publishes Findings on Access, Affordability, and Value of Law School

The AccessLex Institute published its 2022 Legal Education Data Deck to showcase the latest trends in the access, affordability, and value of law school. AccessLex, a nonprofit institution with a mission to improve access to legal education and maximize its affordability and value, creates the data deck using publicly available datasets. We have provided key insights from the deck below. 

Applicant Volume

• Between 2017 and 2021 females made up the majority of applicants, and the proportion of male applicants declined each year during this period. Women accounted for 56 percent of applicants and men made up 42 percent in 2021. Correspondingly, women’s admissions rates were lower than men’s. In 2021, however, women’s admissions rate climbed to 70 percent (+2 percentage points from 2020), which was the first year-over-year increase in admissions rate for either men or women since 2014. 

• In 2017, female enrollment surpassed males. Since then, female enrollment has increased annually while male enrollment has declined. 

• In 2021, just under two-thirds of law degrees were awarded to white students (63 percent), while about a quarter went to students who identified as Hispanic/Latino (12 percent), Black/African-American (7 percent), and Asian (6 percent). 

Costs

• In 2021, there was a significant decrease in the average cost of full-time tuition and fees. Using 2021 dollars to compare costs across time, private school expenses decreased to a level not recorded since 2016, public school (resident) costs decreased to 2014 levels, and public school (non-resident) decreased to a level below 2013. 

• Between 2013 and 2020, there was a significant increase in the median grant amount awarded to full-time students. Using 2021 dollars to compare, the median grant amount increased from $15,800 in 2013 to $22,100 in 2020. 

• The share of full-time students receiving grant awards also increased between 2011 and 2019. In 2011, 13 percent of full-time students received a grant worth at least half of tuition, and in 2019, that number had more than doubled to 29 percent. Similarly, in 2011 52 percent of full-time students received a grant (worth any amount) and by 2019 over three-quarters (78 percent) received grant money. 

Value

• The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Outlooks projects growth in legal employment between 2019 and 2029. Among positions requiring a graduate or professional degree, lawyers are projected to have the third largest increase in openings (32,300). 

Access the full report here. 

Related blogs: Law School Hiring Rebounds to Pre-Pandemic Levels

Law School Hiring Rebounds to Pre-Pandemic Levels

Entry-level hiring for graduating law school students returned to pre-pandemic levels after a dip in 2020. This is according to employment data released earlier this month by the American Bar Association (ABA). 

For the class of 2021, 76 percent obtained jobs requiring bar passage within ten months of graduation. This is an increase of four percentage points from the class of 2020. And 83 percent acquired full-time, long-term employment that either required bar passage or for which a J.D. was an advantage. This is an increase of six percentage points from 2020. 

Full-time employment that requires passing the bar

A Reuters analysis of the ABA employment data provides insight into those law schools with the largest percentages of graduates obtaining full-time employment that required bar passage. 

Columbia Law School landed at the top of the list with almost 96 percent of its 2021 graduating class. It was followed closely by the University of Chicago (93.9 percent), Duke (93.63 percent), and the University of Virginia (93.4 percent). 

While ten of the top 15 schools on this list were also ranked within the U.S. News & World Report top 14, there were also a few lower-cost and lower-ranked public law schools included. University of Georgia ranked fifth (92.57 percent), Texas Tech ranked twelfth (89.31 percent), and University of Montana (88.73 percent) held the fifteenth-highest percentage. 

See all of the top 15 law schools recognized for high rates of full-time employment requiring bar passage here. 

Federal clerkships

Reuters also provided an analysis of those law schools that place the most students into federal clerkships. Just three percent of 2021 graduates attained these highly-competitive placements. 

While Harvard Law School placed the highest number of students into federal clerkships (85), due to its large class, the proportion of its placements fell to just 15 percent. The University of Chicago—for the second year in a row—placed the largest percentage of its graduating class into federal clerkships at 27.7 percent. It was closely followed by Stanford (26.6 percent), Yale (19.72 percent), and the University of Virginia (15.72 percent). 

Reuter’s analysis noted that the large class sizes at the University of Virginia make its upward trajectory notable. 

See all of the top 15 law schools recognized for high rates of federal clerkship placements here.

February Bar Exam Average Score Drops to Match All-Time Low

In a disappointing turn of events for many hopeful lawyers, the February 2022 bar exam results have dropped. The national average score decreased 1.4 points from last year’s February exam to 132.6, which matches the all-time low score garnered in February 2020. Of the twenty states who have reported their February bar exam results, twelve states’ pass rates have decreased. Just six states have seen increases and two states’ rates have held steady. 

New York—the largest bar exam jurisdiction—saw a decrease from 49 percent last year to 45 percent this year, and Florida experienced a similar decline, dropping from a 47 percent pass rate to 43 percent. Pennsylvania and North Carolina experienced more significant declines dropping 14 and ten percentage points, respectively. Among the six states with increasing pass rates were Illinois (up one percentage point from last year, to 43 percent), North Dakota (up 13 percentage points to an impressive 68 percent), and West Virginia (up eight percentage points to 56 percent). 

This year’s exam was notable in that it brought almost all test-takers back to in-person testing sites (with the exception of Nevada, which was experiencing the Omicron COVID-19 surge at the time). Last year, just 16 sites provided in-person testing while all others opted to provide the exam virtually due to the pandemic. 

The National Conference of Bar Examiners’ director of assessment and research, Rosemary Reshetar, reacted to the lower average by pointing out that various factors combine to influence the results. She noted that the February test cohort is smaller than it is for the July exam, which means that the scores tend to fluctuate more from year-to-year. She also said that this year’s February test-takers included more repeat examinees (68 percent) compared to the previous year, and that repeaters tend to have a higher fail rate than first time test-takers. 

Female Law School Students Speak Up More in Small Classes and when Professors Use Systematic Methods for Student Participation

Women made up 57.4 percent of the 2021 incoming law school class according to LSAC data. But a new study confirms that they take up much less than half of the speaking time in required first-year lectures. Building on the “Speak Up” studies performed at elite law schools in the early  2000s on women’s participation in law courses, three professors at the University of Virgina— Molly Bishop Shadel, Sophie Trawalter, and J.H. Verkerke—designed three studies to better understand the dynamics at play. They found that while women do participate less than men, given certain conditions, there are structural changes that law professors can implement to promote more balanced classroom discourse. 

The first study was designed to understand the participation disparities between men and women. Using recordings of required first-year courses, Shadel found that the classroom discourse was disproportionately driven by men—62 percent of classroom utterances were attributed to men, while just 38 percent were from women. Men also spoke longer on average (302 seconds) than did women (194 seconds). Notably, the quality of the responses between genders was not significantly different, nor was the confidence displayed when providing the response (measured via use of verbal fillers and “qualified utterances” in the response). Shadel, describing the findings, said, “We saw that when answering cold calls, women spoke just as much as men, and they also spoke just as well and their answers were equally on point. The gender gap appeared when students were allowed to volunteer whether or not to participate.” Additionally, the gender gap occurred in lecture classes and disappeared entirely in classes with 30 or fewer students.

The second study asked students to self-report class participation at four points in time: at orientation, after the first semester, before the second year, and just prior to graduation. Women generally self-reported speaking less in class, however, the responses varied over time. Women reported speaking less in class after their first semester and before their second year. However, at orientation, women expected that they would speak as much as men, and nearer to graduation, they reported speaking as much as men. A disparity between the men and women occurred in the reasons they reported for not speaking. While men were more likely to say they didn’t speak due to a lack of interest in the subject-matter, women reported concerns about the size of the class, classmates’ judgment, or the professor’s personality and perceived supportiveness. Finally, women were also found to be significantly less positive about the Socratic Method than were men across all time periods. And, those students who expressed a greater dislike of the Socratic Method were also less likely to speak in class. 

The third and final study explored the perceived social backlash against class participation. The study authors surveyed the Class of 2021, who were in their third year and were taking courses in-person and online. Survey responses found that men and women reported speaking in similar amounts, and that both gender groups reported a fear of “backlash” after participating. Women reported feeling more backlash from women, and men from men; however, the highest-rated levels of backlash were by women and from women. 

Based upon the study findings, the authors provided recommendations for how law schools and professors might update the classroom environment to promote women’s participation:

• Reduce the number of large lecture courses and increase the number of smaller class (30 or fewer students) offerings 

• Rather than relying solely on volunteers, implement a systematic plan for calling on students to speak in class to drive a more diverse range of participation 

• Reduce reliance on the Socratic method or update the method from cold-calling to letting students know when they will be expected to participate

• Ensure that there is a clear expectation for all students to participate in classroom discourse to reduce the backlash against students who do

Shadel noted her firm belief that every student can learn to articulate their thoughts confidently and well in a classroom setting if given the opportunity. “You need to be able to take a deep breath and just do it,” she said. “If we are making it hard for students to take that deep breath because we’re putting them in a group of 90 people and putting them on the spot only one time, then I don’t think we’re serving them well.”

Law School Admissions Council to Pilot Program that Replaces Standardized Testing Requirement with Defined Undergraduate Curriculum

The Law School Admissions Council (LSAC) recently announced that it is developing a pilot program, which will offer an alternative pathway to law school—one that does not require standardized testing. Rather, it will gauge student readiness using a defined undergraduate curriculum meant to prepare students for the rigors of law school. 

During the pilot, LSAC will partner with undergraduate institutions to define and implement a curriculum that students will complete before graduation to earn eligibility to apply to law school without LSAT or GRE scores. The underlying idea is that the curriculum will prepare students for the same skills that the LSAT covers. Currently, Cornell College in Mt. Vernon, Iowa, Northeastern University, and the University of Maryland Eastern Shore have committed to participate and are helping to develop the program. There is also an 11-member advisory committee including law school deans from University of Michigan, Northwestern, Howard, Suffolk University, and UC Berkeley.

LSAC representatives do not see the program as one that will eventually overtake standardized testing as the primary path to law school, but they are hopeful that it will create a viable alternative that could increase access to legal education. Kaitlynn Griffith, LSAC Vice President of Product Development and Business Intelligence, describes the pilot as a way to broaden the pipeline for law school. “One of our founding principles on this was to look at diversity, equity and inclusion and ask, ‘How can we be opening more doors into the legal profession?’” 

Once the pilot is in place, which will likely include having the initial group of participating students take the LSAT to validate their performance and readiness, the LSAC will have a continued role to play in convincing both the American Bar Association and law schools to accept the new applicant pathway. Griffith notes she is hopeful that, after a successful pilot period, the program will expand to include more undergraduate universities.

Nearly 100 Percent of 2L Summer Associates Receive Full-Time Employment Offers

Earlier this month the National Association for Law Placement (NALP) released its Perspectives on 2021 Law Student Recruiting report describing a surge in legal recruiting. The coupling of last year’s conservative hiring stance with strong industry-wide financial performance and a rebound in demand for legal services, has brought a resurgence in law firms’ hiring. James Leipold, NALP’s Executive Director, writes in the report that, “Law firms have been scrambling for talent at both the lateral and entry levels. As a result, recruiting activity in 2021 was robust, with offer rates for summer spots reaching their highest mark since 2007.” 

Among second-year students with summer associate positions at law firms, 97 percent received offers for full-time associate positions post-graduation, and 89 percent—an all-time high— accepted the offers. Similarly, among first-year summer associates, 93 percent received an offer to return for a second summer and 72 percent accepted the offer. Additionally, in the fall, 53 percent of law schools reported an increase of more than ten percent in the number of firms participating in on-campus recruiting (in-person or virtual) for summer 2022 positions for second year students, compared to last year. And 73 percent of law firms reported that they made more offers for summer associate positions for this summer compared to last.   

When it comes to entry into big law firms, prospective law students should review Law.com’s annual ranking of “go-to law schools,” which ranks schools according to the percentage of 2021 graduates that accepted associate positions at the 100 largest law firms (based on number of attorneys). 

The top ten schools include: Columbia (64 percent), University of Pennsylvania (60 percent), Cornell (56 percent), Northwestern (52 percent), Duke (51 percent), NYU (51 percent), UVA (48 percent), UC Berkeley (45 percent), University of Chicago (45 percent), and Harvard (41 percent). While the top schools have seen some movement, notably Duke narrowly overtaking NYU for a spot within the top five, Columbia has been the top feeder into big law firms for the past nine years. Law.com’s article does note that the ranking excludes clerkships, which likely explains the absence of Stanford and Yale in the top ten. In addition to the go-to law school rankings for big firms, Law.com also publishes a list of “Firm Favorites” that can provide valuable insight into those law schools firms recruit most heavily from.  

Yale Continues Reign as Top-Ranked Law School in Latest US News Ranking

The US News and World Report published its 2023 Best Law School Rankings today with Yale and Stanford (again) taking the top two positions. Notably, University of Chicago overtook Harvard for the third rank, while Harvard dropped to fourth, a spot it shares with Columbia University. Generally, the top ten looked similar to past years, with some slight movement, including Duke University dropping out of the top ten, to the eleventh rank, from tenth last year. 
Find the complete 2023 Best Law Schools ranking.

New Attorneys Lack Leadership and Client Interaction Skills

Law students name communication as the top soft skill required for lawyers. Practicing lawyers are more likely to say that it’s judgment. Bloomberg Law’s Law School Preparedness Survey provides insight into how law school prepares new attorneys for legal careers from the perspective of practicing attorneys, law students, faculty, and law librarians. And, on this particular point, attorney and student views were not quite aligned. After communications, students named research and self-management as the top soft skills, while attorneys placed communication and self-management after judgment.

Veteran attorneys were also asked to rate new attorneys’ soft skills on a scale from very weak to very strong. Not surprisingly, attorneys ranked new arrivals highest on email skills with 77 percent of attorneys reporting the skill slightly strong, strong or very strong. Attorneys ranked critical thinking (68 percent), organization skills (62 percent), and verbal communication (62 percent) next highest among the soft skills. On the other end of the spectrum, leadership skills and client interactions garnered the highest percentages of very weak, weak, or slightly weak ratings, at 65 and 64 percent respectively. Networking, decision-making, and judgment fared only slightly better with over 50 percent of attorneys rating new attorneys weak in these skills. Notably, the practicing attorneys’ ratings did not overlap significantly with the views of faculty, who generally rated new attorneys’ soft skills more positively, with the exception of client interactions and email.    

The survey also asked respondents where they thought the skills should be taught: in undergraduate courses, in law school, or on the job. There was consensus across all groups— attorneys, law students, faculty, and law librarians—that writing and research skills should be obtained prior to starting work and that management skills should be taught on the job. Across the groups, a majority felt that research and writing skills should be taught in law school. As for soft skills, there was a lack of agreement across groups. Law students and law librarians believe soft skills belong in the undergraduate curriculum at 46 and 47 percent, respectively. Attorneys were most likely to say that soft skills should be acquired on the job (43 percent), and 47 percent of faculty thought soft skills should be taught in law school. 

Finally, veteran attorneys were asked what skills they wish new attorneys had prior to practicing, and what skills they wish they had been taught prior to starting work. For new arrivals, the vast majority named client communications and interactions (80 percent), and professional writing (79 percent). Similarly, attorneys said that they wished they had learned client interactions (55 percent), conflict management (42 percent), leadership skills (33 percent), and professional communications (31 percent) prior to starting their careers.

Find the full survey results here.

Law School Admissions Officers Express Preference for LSAT Over GRE Scores

Last November the council of the ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar voted in favor of allowing law schools to accept GRE scores in place of the LSAT for admissions decisions. However, a recent Kaplan survey suggests that law school admissions officers still give admissions preference to students who submit LSAT scores. 

Kaplan’s survey respondents included representatives from 25 schools that accept both LSAT and GRE scores from applicants. Of these, 13 reported an admissions advantage for students who submit LSAT scores and the remaining 12 reported that they view the tests equally. None of the schools expressed a preference for the GRE. 

Jeff Thomas, Kaplan’s Executive Director of Legal Programs, summarized the survey results: “What Kaplan’s survey shows is that while there is some definite movement to accept the GRE among law schools, there’s still not full acceptance. Of the schools we spoke with that accept scores from both exams, half say that applicants who submit LSAT scores have the edge over GRE applicants. In fact, no law school we spoke with gives the edge to GRE applicants. Some admissions officers noted the LSAT is created specifically for law school admissions so they have more faith in it, while the GRE, as its name suggests, is much more of a general exam. Schools also treat LSAT students more favorably, giving quicker admissions decisions to LSAT applicants, and scholarship awards exclusively to LSAT applicants. Our research suggests it will be at least several more years before law schools fully warm up to the GRE.”

The survey also provided an opportunity for law school admissions officers to write narrative responses. These direct quotes, while anonymous, offer additional insight into how admissions officers view the two tests. 

Some express a greater faith in the validity of the LSAT’s predictive value for an applicant’s performance in law school. 

“The GRE does not breed confidence in me to put my professional reputation on the line. (I still have bills to pay….) The primary reason why we are including the GRE as an option is because the faculty of this institution didn’t want to ‘fall behind’ the law schools. Well, how do we know where those other law schools are going? How do we know that that direction is the direction that we need or want to take?”

“The advantage to the LSAT is that it is established, accepted universally, and unique to law school. The vast amount of data and history gives it predictive value. Individually, there can be a benefit to someone who can perform better on the GRE, but in terms of competing in a pool, it is still relatively unknown in law schools.” 

“Individuals with an LSAT score will probably need to wait less time to receive an admissions decision. This is because the individuals who evaluate the application for admission have more faith in the validity, reliability and minimization of standardized testing bias that accompany the LSAT.”  

“From my own experience, the GRE is a glorified SAT that doesn’t actually tell us anything about a prospective student’s ability to be an effective law student. The LSAT’s not perfect, but it’s a much better diagnostic tool.” 

Others suggest that taking the LSAT is more indicative of a commitment to law school and the legal profession, as opposed to the GRE which may imply that an applicant is considering law school among other graduate options. 

“For now, we believe that applicants most interested in attending law school will take or have taken the LSAT. Considering the high focus on the cost of law school, graduate debt load, and volatile employment outcomes, we think it is prudent to admit students who have been preparing for law school over time. In addition, there is data that asserts the GRE has the same bias as other standardized tests, so it remains to be seen whether it will result in a significant increase in diverse applicants overall.” 

Finally, another admissions officer pointed out that the LSAT is the preferred test when it comes to determining who will receive scholarship funds.

“We do not offer robust scholarships to GRE only applicants.” 

Law School Applicant Volume Drops After Last Year’s Historic Spike

According to Law School Admission Council (LSAC) data released over the weekend, law school applicant volume for the 2021/2022 admissions cycle has decreased by 9.8 percent from last year and by 9 percent from two years ago. The data compared both applicants and applications as of February 26, 2022 to the same time period for the two preceding application periods. The number of applications submitted also decreased by 8 percent compared to last year; however, they have increased by a staggering 22 percent compared to the same time period two years ago. This suggests that while the number of applications has dropped compared to last year's historic surge (although by a smaller percentage than the decrease in applicants), prospective students continue to submit applications to more schools than they did in previous years. 

As of February 26th, the number of submitted applications to private schools has seen a more significant decrease (-9.3 percent) than for public schools (-5.3 percent) compared to last year. Of the 199 ABA approved law schools, 106 schools reported a decreased application volume compared to last year, 84 reported increased volume, and nine schools report no change. 

The number of applications has also decreased across all ethnicities. The smallest decrease has been among those identifying as Asian (-3 percent) and Hispanic/Latino (-3.1 percent). The largest decreases has been among Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (-14.8 percent), Canadian Aboriginal/Indigenous (-12.1 percent), and Caucasian/White (-12 percent) applicants. 

The numbers are not yet final, with many schools’ final submission dates occurring in early March, however the LSAC report notes that, at this point last year, 73 percent of the preliminary final applicant count had been received. This suggests that these patterns are likely to hold through the remainder of the application cycle. 

Law Schools Incorporate Technology and Innovation into Curriculums, which may Improve Access to Justice

Many who need legal representation do not have the means to obtain it. The Legal Services Corporation (LSC), referencing state studies, notes that 80 percent of civil legal needs are unmet. In response, law schools have begun to emerge as key advocates in driving the technological innovations that may help to decrease the access-to-justice gap. 

In 2019, the law school at the University of Pennsylvania received a $125 million gift to launch a Future of the Profession initiative (FPI) with a focus on technological innovation, specifically relating to access to justice improvements. The Initiative’s executive director and chief innovation officer, Jennifer Leonard, describes the FPI as the law school’s “recognition that the legal profession—like many professions—is undergoing a period of enormous change and that a leading law school has an opportunity and obligation to lead through that change.” Similarly, the Pew Charitable Trust is partnering with Stanford Law School and Suffolk Law School “to develop technology reforms that can help courts serve more people, and pair those changes with improvements to associated court processes in order to enhance people’s experiences and interactions with the legal system.” 

These initiatives, in addition to promoting access to justice, also provide students excellent hands-on opportunities to participate in design thinking, research, and technological development. A recent Reuters interview with Joe Regalia, a law professor at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas and Co-Founder of write.law, and Amanda Brown, a legal innovation and technology expert and Founder of Lagniappe Law Lab (LLL) celebrate this momentum. They identify technology as a key means to scale legal services, and law school as the place to combine legal acumen with technological skills.

Regalia says that incorporating technology skill sets into the law school curriculum and instilling “innovation mindsets” will enable students to analyze legal services from a unique vantage, which will give them a head start in working within a fluid environment, scaling a legal approach, and adapting new delivery models for legal services. Skills that are relevant, within the legal profession, but also more generally across the professional workforce, as technology advances continue to change the way business is done. 

Young Lawyers Express Desire for Employers to Provide Clear Career Progression, Mentorship Opportunities, and Better Work-Life Balance

A global survey of young lawyers sponsored by the International Bar Association gives an eye-opening look at workplace satisfaction in the legal profession. The survey, which includes responses from over 3,000 professionals, aged 40 and under, found that in the next five years, 54 percent are likely to move to a new, comparable workplace, 33 percent are likely to move to a new legal profession (e.g., from a firm to in-house), and 20 percent are likely to leave law altogether. Most who say that they are planning to leave their current roles point to salary as the impetus (49 percent). But many also named progression opportunities and work-life balance (38 and 36 percent, respectively). Among the 20 percent who plan to leave the legal profession, 41 percent cite workload and 36 percent cite work-life balance. 

Just ten percent of respondents felt that they had not experienced any barriers to progression in their careers. Among the young lawyers who did express concerns about career progression, 37 percent said they feel their efforts to balance commitments hinders their career opportunities. A similar number, 36 percent, call out a lack of mentorship. Just under one-third (mostly in-house lawyers) feel that there is a dearth of promotion opportunities. The report also found that women report barriers to career progression at a higher rate than men; 40 percent of women report difficulty balancing commitments (34 percent for men), 39 percent of women cite a lack of mentorship and career guidance (32 percent for men), and most differentiating, 20 percent of women cite direct discrimination compared to just nine percent of men.

When asked about concerns for their future, most young lawyers cited work-life balance (62 percent); this held particularly true among the youngest lawyers, as well as the female lawyers surveyed. Following in a distant second, 43 percent named opportunities for growth and 36 percent named oversaturation of the labor market with new law graduates and failure of the legal profession to address toxic workplaces.

The survey responses, although global, likely also hold true within the U.S., which has a reputation for hard-charging corporate environments. However, James Goodnow, CEO and Managing Partner at Fennemore Craig, said in Above the Law that these workplace-related obstacles—lack of mentorship and promotion opportunities—are “...curable, but they require real thought and effort to make them effective.” He notes that putting together quick and simple solutions that check the box should not be the takeaway for legal industry leaders. For example, rather than quickly assigning young lawyers to mentors and hoping for success, firms should take the more difficult path of cultivating close working relationships between young and experienced lawyers. He calls out the power of “proximity and time” to create “real affinity and friendship.” Similarly, he notes that promotion cycles should not just be known, consistent and achievable, but that young lawyers should be given opportunities to make meaningful contributions to the firm. He recommends providing opportunities for young lawyers to become subject matter experts. “As with so many problems in law firms, the cure really comes down to cultivating a strong firm culture. When our teams feel cared about, when they lift one another up and empower each other, all the seemingly impossible problems tend to become less significant,” he said. 

Legal Community Proposes Law Schools Incorporate Stress Management into their Curriculums

The first year of law school is a time of significant stress. Last week, Law.com reported on a post made in the r/lawschool sub-reddit by a user who described their experience as a first semester law student. The poster noted that because of stress, they suffered from unintentional weight loss, vision changes, headaches, acid reflux, and newly acquired tremors after the first semester. The thread quickly garnered many replies. While some expressed sympathy and concern, over 70 comments by other law school students described similar stress-induced physical ailments including weight gain, low energy, poor nutrition, constant fatigue, eczema, and anxiety.

Charles N. Todd, Dean of Students for the University of Chicago Law School, speaking to Law.com about the thread, described the first year of law school as “one of the steepest learning curves.” However, he continued on to say that, “I tell students all the time that it’s not going to get any easier. The demands of your time will not go away once you leave school. In fact, you’re going to have more things with family responsibilities, life, and work, so we really want them to learn how to develop healthy habits in law school so those will sustain them throughout their career.” 

The initial reddit poster followed up to share their decision to visit a doctor and noted their intention to create healthier habits the next semester. Dean Todd recommended taking small breaks throughout the day to incorporate healthy activity. “It doesn’t have to be this big interruption in your day, it could be a 10-minute break to color or to have some healthy food or do some stretches because you’ve been sitting a long time,” he said. 

Others in the legal community suggest that law schools should take more responsibility for student health. Janet Thomas Jackson, a law professor at Washburn University School of Law, calls for law schools to take an active role in promoting wellbeing and mental health within their student populations. In an article written for Bloomberg Law, she noted how frequently law students and legal professionals are impacted by depression. According to the Dave Nee Foundation, “Depression among law students is 8-9% prior to matriculation, 27% after one semester, 34% after 2 semesters, and 40% after 3 years.” Further, just as Dean Todd noted, the foundation’s data shows that stress and its associated effects do not necessarily recede after law school. Rather, lawyers are the most frequently depressed professional group within the U.S., and lawyers suffer depression at a rate 3.6 times that of non-lawyers. 

Jackson suggests that the legal community not accept this as inevitable; she proposes that law schools integrate discussions of physical and mental health throughout student’s tenure, starting at orientation. And prior to starting classes, law schools should educate students and their families on the “expectations and predictable stressors” of law school, resources for seeking help, and insight into healthy habits and effective stress management. She notes that students of color should receive additional support, including safe spaces and communities where they can share their experiences and feel a sense of belonging. Finally, Jackson recommends that self-care practices and physical and mental health be integrated into the curriculum. “In other words, law schools should play a primary role in normalizing discussions and actions around the mental and physical care of its students,” she said.  

Related Blogs: Law School Students Still Not Receiving Adequate Mental Health Support

Biden Administration Remains Under Pressure to Move Forward with Student Debt Cancellation

On May 1, 2022, which is just three months away, federal student loan payments will resume. This comes after a two-year period during which borrowers could choose whether or not they would make payments. As the date nears, the Biden administration is under pressure to make good on campaign promises to reduce student debt for millions of Americans with federal loans. Last week, 85 Democratic members of Congress sent the President a letter urging him to, “...direct the Department of Education to publicly release the memo outlining your legal authority to broadly cancel federal student loan debt and immediately cancel up to $50,000 of student loan debt per borrower.”

But it is still unclear how President Biden will move forward. During his campaign, he promised to forgive up to $10,000 per student loan borrower, but he has since expressed hesitancy to extend loan forgiveness to those attending elite schools or who obtained professional graduate degrees, and have strong repayment prospects. In a press conference last month, President Biden declined to comment on a question about student loan forgiveness. 

An article in the Wall Street Journal speculates that the Biden Administration may opt to forego blanket debt forgiveness for an alternative path, “...by starting a regulatory process, complete with input from stakeholders, to set up a debt-forgiveness program that targets people most in need.” This path may allow the administration to avoid a potential Supreme Court battle that an Executive Action may spur.

In the meantime, the administration has moved forward with more targeted loan-relief initiatives, such as a revamp of the long-standing Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. This would allow those who have worked for a public or nonprofit organization, and also made monthly payments for a ten-year period (120 payments) to have their loans forgiven. A revamp is exciting for current business, medical, and law students who wish to go into public service, and necessary. The original program, which dates back to 2007, burdened participants with bureaucratic hurdles, and only provided benefits to a small percentage, about 16,000 out of 1.3 million. 

A Compelling Diversity Statement will Strengthen Your Candidacy for Law School

Let’s start with some context around the importance of diversity within the legal profession. The ABA recently published a piece on why diversity matters in the law, defining diversity as “... more than just racial or ethnic diversity. The concept of diversity encompasses all persons of every background, gender, race, sexual orientation, age, and/or disability.” The article goes on to provide the perspectives of leaders within the legal industry on the importance of diversity, which we have excerpted below. 

Find the full text here. 

• Public confidence. “[R]acial and ethnic diversity in the legal profession is necessary to demonstrate that our laws are being made and administered for the benefit of all persons. Because the public’s perception of the legal profession often informs impressions of the legal system, a diverse bar and bench create greater trust in the rule of law.” (ABA)

• Quality of legal decisions. “A diverse legal profession is more just, productive, and intelligent because diversity, both cognitive and cultural, often leads to better questions, analyses, solutions, and processes.” (ABA)

• Competitive advantage. “A demonstrated commitment to diversity and inclusion can be a key aspect of a law firm’s competitive advantage when it comes to recruiting and retaining talent and pitching certain clients. Clients receive the highest quality service when their legal teams are drawn from professionals mirroring the diversity of the marketplace.” (Tiffani Lee, Partner, Holland & Knight, LLP)

• Path to leadership. “In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity,” (Justice O’Connor, Ret., noting that the nation’s leaders often come through the legal system)

• Thought leadership. “Their unique backgrounds help to ensure that a 360-degree approach is used to analyze each issue. Having a diverse legal team helps to eliminate the possibility of bias affecting your final decision.” (Robin Wofford of Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, who also serves as chair of the National Association of Minority & Women Owned Law Firms)

For these reasons, and many more, it is critical that law schools and the legal profession are representative of the larger population. So, what does that mean for your application to law school? It means that you will want to craft a diversity statement that will show the reader your ability to connect, grow, thrive, and meaningfully collaborate in diverse environments and/or explore how you will contribute to the diversity of the incoming class. Of course, you want the piece to strengthen your candidacy, so if it feels forced or inauthentic, or if the prompt seems limited to those who identify as a racial or other minority and does not apply to you, it is best to leave it blank.  

In brainstorming possible experiences or anecdotes to include, ask yourself the following questions: 

• What traits or characteristics make you unique? 

• In what way might you be able to offer your law school cohort an unconventional perspective? 

• What are some collaborative situations in which you have experienced discomfort? Did you work with an international group on a project in an academic or professional setting, or have an internship in a foreign country where no one else in the office spoke English?

• What are some experiences that prompted an evolution in your perspective? Did you participate in a volunteer project serving an underrepresented clientele or provide services to those with disabilities or unique obstacles?

• How are your experiences likely different from those of other candidates? Did you take an unusual career path prior to applying to law school? 

Once you have a thorough brainstorm, we can help you to further develop a story that communicates to admissions committees your ability to contribute to a dynamic and diverse learning environment and grow from others’ perspectives. 

Trends in Law: Recruiting and Retaining Legal Professionals Named Key Challenge for Firms in 2022

The Thomson Reuters 2022 Report on the State of the Legal Market names the recruiting and retention of legal and professional staff as the biggest challenge for law firms in 2022. Financially, law firms have rebounded from the early days of the pandemic; in 2021 firms saw a four percent increase in growth, compared to 2020, and a one percent increase from 2019 (a more realistic comparison after the drop in demand due to the pandemic). However, law firms are facing challenges similar to those seen within the broader job market, and are not immune to the effects of the great resignation. In a 2021 survey of 55 U.S. law firms by Thomson Reuters and the Georgetown Law Center, executives named talent-related issues—lawyer recruitment and retention, poaching of staff by competitors, and increasing associate salaries—as the top three greatest risks to firm profitability in 2022. For reference, in 2020, talent-related risks did not even appear within the top five. 

As expected, associate compensation, across the market, has been increasing rapidly. At the close of November 2021, there was an 11.3 percent increase (as a rolling 12-month average) across market segments and, within the Am Law 100 elite firms, compensation increased by more than 15 percent. But firms continue to see record levels of turnover. This means that for all of the compensation outlays, the total growth in lawyer headcount is minimal (1.5 percent growth). And at the end of November 2021, across the market, turnover reached 23.2 percent (on a rolling 12-month basis), which is significantly higher than the pre-pandemic 2019 rate (18.7 percent). Among the Am Law 100 firms, turnover was slightly higher (23.7 percent) and among the Am Law 200 and mid-size firms slightly lower (22.1 and 22.0 percent, respectively). 

Associates’ attitudes towards work and life are clearly changing. In The American Lawyer’s 2021 Mid-level Associates Survey, which included nearly 4,000 respondents from 77 Am Law 200 firms, 27 percent said they would leave their firm for higher compensation and 60 percent said they would consider leaving their firm for an improved work-life balance. These results are likely related to a year of particularly long working hours as demand for legal services grew, in addition to the blurring between work and life due to the pandemic. The report notes that the push-back to long working hours was more apparent among younger associates, and that middle-aged lawyers (aged 40 to 60) were comfortable working 10 percent longer hours. 

In response, firms should look beyond increasing compensation to improve associate retention. Below are initiatives that some firms are exploring to curb turnover: 

• Offering more interesting or high-profile work, mentoring, and/or faster promotion sequencing

• Updating compensation metrics, moving away from billable hours, to a task and quality-oriented system

• Providing wellness, counseling, and stress-management programs

• Offering social, recreational, and team-building activities to promote a collaborative and close-knit office culture

While these activities and initiatives may start to improve associates’ firm loyalty, the Thomson Reuters report calls out a need for more meaningful change to improve retention, saying “Achieving that goal will require firms to reimagine their structures and operations in the post-pandemic world to provide the real “glue” that we know is necessary to bind people to organizations—feelings of value and meaning in their work, feeling appreciated and recognized, having opportunities for growth and personal satisfaction, and believing that they are making a contribution to something larger than themselves.“

Find the full report here: 2022 State of Legal Market Report

Elite Law Schools Provide Best Return on Investment

A Wall Street Journal analysis of federal student loan debt recently showed that elite law programs can offer the best return on investment to graduates. Among the top 20, the debt-to-income ratio averaged out to 1.0, which means that graduates were making a salary just two years out of school equal to what they had accrued in debt; the range in debt to income ratio among this elite group spanned from 0.7 at Stanford  to 1.36 at Georgetown University. 

Of note, this analysis only includes the salary and student loan debt for students who took out federal student loans and does not include private loans. The analysis reviewed the federal student loan debt accrued in 2015 and 2016 compared to the graduate’s salary two years later. 

*17 schools ranked within the top 20 were included in the Wall Street Journal analysis; Yale, Duke and Cornell were not included

More broadly, however, the Wall Street Journal found that most law degrees, excluding those from elite programs, have decreased in value over time as inflation has outpaced salary, all while tuition prices have risen dramatically. The article notes that between 1985 and 2019, adjusting for inflation, the average annual tuition for a private law school has nearly tripled according to advocacy group, Law School Transparency. And, within this context, salaries have not jumped as significantly.

According to the National Association for Law Placement, starting law salaries generally fall within two clusters: $45,000-$75,000 for public service and small firm attorneys and around $190,000 for attorneys at large firms. And, according to a Law School Transparency analysis using American Bar Association data, more than half of the entry-level jobs at the large and high-paying firms go to graduates of the top 20 ranked law programs.

Prospective law students should take into account a law program’s cost as well as the expected median salary for graduates during the school selection process. Additionally, for those students who hope to go into public service or work for a smaller firm, it may be beneficial to compare the costs and outcomes for various public and private law school options, as well as debt repayment plans that may be available for different career tracks. Similarly, those hoping to obtain a place at a large and high-paying firm should look at placement outcomes at law schools of interest to best position themselves for success. 

Related blogs:

15-Year Law School Experience Study Shows Changes in Student Demographics and Debt, Consistency in Student Satisfaction with Legal Education

ABA Report Calls for Action to Help Young Lawyers Struggling with Student Loans

National Bar Exam Results Remain Stable, but Early State-Level Reports Show Declining Pass Rates

An article published last week on Law.com proclaims that the early results for the July 2021 multi-state bar exam were “less drama-filled than the exam itself” with the national mean scaled score falling only slightly compared to 2019. The national mean score, 140.4, was released last Wednesday by The National Conference of Bar Examiners and showed a decrease of just 0.7 from the pre-pandemic July 2019 national mean of 141.1 (the last time a full national group took the test). This year’s mean was also generally on-par with 2020, when due to the ongoing pandemic, the test was administered on three different dates with reported mean scores of: 141.6, 142.7, and 137.2. And, the mean score fared better than in 2018 when the mean was 139.5. 

While all states administered a bar exam in July, due to the pandemic, 24 jurisdictions offered the test in-person and 29 offered it via full-length online exam. Online test-takers reported an experience riddled with technical difficulties. For some, the remote-testing software crashed and forced a computer restart costing them valuable time—ranging from a few minutes to an hour and a half—and causing significant added stress.  

And, despite the similar mean-score comparisons at the national-level, an article from Reuters suggests that the early state-level pass rates are emerging as “ominous” indicators. Just nine states have published results, but eight of them are reporting lower pass rates than in 2020. While the number of test-takers in each state has been relatively small, Iowa’s pass rate decreased by 12 percentage points this year (71 percent passed in July), New Mexico’s decreased by 18 percentage points (71 percent), and Nebraska’s decreased by 17 percentage points (72 percent). In North Carolina, the overall pass rate dropped from 83 percent in 2020 to 75 percent this year, despite the passing score being decreased by 2 percentage points in response to the online test’s technical problems. South Dakota, at this point, is the only state to increase its pass rate (+ 3 percentage points year-over-year) to 73 percent. 

Five out of the nine reporting states gave full, in-person exams both this year and last, and four out of five of them reported drops in pass-rates. This suggests that not all of the blame can be put upon the online test. University of Iowa law professor Derek Muller, speaking to Reuters, points to pandemic fatigue and learning loss related to law schools’ move to online and hybrid learning. “That’s showing in the results now. That’s just speculation, so I think we’re going to want to see more about it. But that’s something law schools should be looking really hard at,” he said. 

While the National Conference of Bar Examiners has already said that the bar exam will no longer be available in an online format and will return to in-person testing only, it will be interesting to see the pass results for other jurisdictions. Law schools may find it necessary to provide additional support to students.