Or there's always tort reform!

Tort law makes up but a small cost of of a company's litigation expense. Firms will continue to charge more as long as the clients feel that they are getting their money worth.

Too little blame for escalating legal costs
has been allocated to the law firms and their policies. If you totaled all the billable hours charged to clients in a given year and divided that number by the total number of lawyers in the firm, you will find that a significant number of them must have exceeded 24 hours/day in order to justify the number of billed hours.
Some corporate clients who practice quality management principles in their organizations audit their legal charges to make certain the hours are correct and that per hour charges are attributed to the appriopriate lawyers.

How about doing away with law schools and returning to the "apprenticeship" approach to the study of law followed by the bar exam. Are not many law schools moving in this direction anyway through clinical programs and the like?

How about for those "baby" lawyers among us,who actually worked in the private sector for 10 years or more before going back to law school (at night while holding down a full time job) on our own dime, while supporting a family, and managed to do it all without piling up any debt? Call me arrogant, but I walked into my first day at the firm with more maturity and client skills than most of the Partners who had been there for 15 years. Also, call me selfish, but I did not put myself through the above hell so that YOU could have a better life. I did it for my family and myself, and I am reaping the rewards of that hard work. I owe society nothing.

11:23 Anonymous concludes, "I did it for my family and myself, and I am reaping the rewards of that hard work. I owe society nothing."

Wow. Access to the law and access to justice, in any real sense, has been institutionalized to come through lawyers. The rule of law is how our society functions, and our society has made us, the lawyers, the gatekeepers to that functionality. Ours is not a mere business or profit-making enterprise. It is a "profession" in the truest sense of the word. We profess the law; we are access-providers.

You remove yourself from any sense of professionalism when you proclaim that you owe society nothing. There is nothing wrong, inherently, with making the money-choice and going to work for Big Law. But there is something wrong when that option is taken at the expense of acknowledging your role within the profession of law. The answer isn't necessarily compulsory service in the public sector, which, though drastic-sounding, is merely a band-aid that puts off the same devil's choice and cost-problems identified by the author for a two-year period. The answer is a profession-long commitment to balancing private-sector advocacy with public-sector service. In the private-sector-servicing law firms, this should be through significant pro bono practice, though too often there is only lip service paid.

I couldn't agree more with the last post. I did not manage to avoid debt as I went to Law School straight out of College. I opened my own firm, but I surely would have accepted an offer from "Big Law" if that were presented.

I am ranting about this all day today, but I hate when people try to assert that higher costs for companies results in higher costs for consumers. That is just not true. If a company raised the price of its goods because costs went up, someone else would step in and find a way to keep the price at the equilibrium point.

I also never understand this hatred for Corporations in America, as if they are run and owned by evil geniuses sitting around twisting their mustaches and thinking of ways to screw consumers and the environment. Almost all of the largest corporations are publicly owned, that means it is you and me and your neighbors that own these companies. It is you and I that benefit when they do well. With everyone's interest being centered on the Corporation doing well, why would they pay exorbitant legal fees if it was not worth it? They wouldn't, which means the legal fees are worth it.

I am getting off topic, but my hard work is my hard work and no one will tell me what I have to do, or where I have to work because they want to impose their own misguided moral ideal on me.

Society needs many things, it does not need socialized legal practice.

This is so typical of a "progressive" response: mandate voluntary behavior among the novices in order to realize a greater "good." And what is that good? Suing on behalf of public interest projects, you can bet that Andrew is thinking ACLU and homeless rather than the NRA and tax independence. I do not hear Andrew crying for mandatory years of voluntary servitude for engineers, when they are the ones who could do more good for society.

The production (education) of lawyers is not subsidized by society the way the production of doctors and engineers is. It is a profit center for most schools and is funded with private capital by the students. And why should the poor and the needy or deserving have to make-do with novice attorneys? I know if I was charged with a crime the last thing I want is a public defender.

The legal profession embraces pro-bono work and demands it, and can enlist attorneys into servitude as part of the bar commitments. I suppose you could improve this by mandating say 1 or 2 days per month of actual work or in billing fees; most of the senior attorneys would just pay the fee.

Almost every American has a choice about what type of work they will do, and the nice thing about the United States is that we have the mobility to make that choice every day, every year.

Andrew, here is your big chance, leave CBS and the blog and do something worthwhile for society -- ummm, leaving CBS and the blog in itself would probably address that goal...

The shallow dichotomy between "corporate law" and "public service"
continues. The true harm is done when we believe that "corporate"
attorneys (be they in big or small firms) do not serve the public
good. They serve the public good when they litigate ethically and
force clients to take a hard look at the consequences of their
actions. Indeed, the greatest need for "publicly minded" lawyers is
in the corporate sector. To perpetuate the notion that there is
"corporate law" and "public service law" only makes it easier for
those in corporate practice to be blind to the public impact they make
every day, and to therefore let their impact be negative rather than
positive.

While many law students do graduate with mountains of debt, only a comparatively handful are lucky enough to get hired by a wealthy law firm that pays in the $145K-$160K range. The rest get jobs at law firms paying in the $40K range -- less, in some cases, than government work. Further, the "best" students from the best schools often do clerk for judges for a year or two after graduating, before going to work for a firm. In other words, I think you are proposing an already-being-used solution to the wrong problem. Add on to this the fact that the "best" government agencies that hire lawyers -- the Justice Department, SEC, etc. -- like to hire only experienced lawyers (and have few problems recruiting candidates away from 6-figure salaries) and I would turn your proposal on its head: it's best for baby lawyers to work at a private firm for a few years before committing to public service. That way the private sector pays for the training and pays off the law school debt and the public sector gets better lawyers.

Constitutionalist:

I think you are projecting some of your value judgments on what Andrew thinks is or is not a worthy pro-bono cause. While I don't agree with the policy positions of many interest groups, I wouldn't begin (and I suspect neither would Mr. Cohen) to suggest that my cause is worthy and yours isn't.

The only trouble with your argument is that the Consitution does not guarantee the services of a doctor or engineer. But it does guarantee a lawyer. This gives lawyers not only a special status within society, but also a special responsibility to society.

Most people I know find a way to give back to their communities. I spend a great deal of time volunteering with my local YMCA in parent/child programs (over 1,000 hours in a couple of years). But I still feel a special responsibility as a lawyer to provide legal services to poeple who otherwise could not afford a lawyer.

I still have hellacious loans to repay, though and that money doesn't grow on trees.

$150k for starters, eh? what's school cost?

I would say in my estimate about $400-$500 Thousand.

$150,000k in student loans
$150,000k in opportunity cost for not working for 3 years

Another $100,000-$200,000 in interest over the life of the Student Loans.

Plus, three years of my life, whatever that is worth.

I worked for a judge once who had his new law clerks file and make copies. When they'd complain and tell him that they should be doing higher level work [for which they weren't yet qualified, although nobody had told them that], he would simply advise them that he did not see why they should not start out the same way he and his contemporaries had.

A smart judge!

It was along the lines of Bill Cosby's advice to college graduates "Get to know the janitor. He knows everything that's going on!" A little humility can reap significant dividends.

Somewhere, in some way 11:23 Anonymous is going to have his ass handed to him for his attitude. It's a shame that he won't actually know why, as he's blaming somebody else.

The reason that law schools churn out graduates with no real experience in numbers far exceeding demand is that revenue accrues to the schools, and at the same time law firms can exploit the large crop of wet-behinde-the-ears "baby lawyers" by offering them the experience they never got in law school.

The solution is simple: make law school a 4-year course (like all other doctoral programs) with the fourth year one of practice under the wing of an instructor, similar to the physician's year of internship.

It seems odd standing up for "Anonymous 11:23" but I agree with what he (or she) is saying.

"Somewhere, in some way 11:23 Anonymous is going to have his ass handed to him for his attitude. It's a shame that he won't actually know why, as he's blaming somebody else."

That statement, I think, is misinterpreting the Anonymous 11:23's statement completely. I think the point he/she was trying to make is about personal accountability, and personal freedom. It is his/her choice to do with his/her life as he/she sees fit, and not answer to someone else's imposed set of ideals.

Kudos Anonymous 11:23

I don't think "mike s" actually read the article.

While I understand "anonymous 11:23's" point of view, and congratulate himher for all that hard work, the opinion that heshe has more skills than the partners is just that - one person's opinion. That anecdote does not address the issue discussed in the article.

There is a lot of validity to the apprentice program, and not just in the field of law either. How much of the average grad's loan debt could be reduced if they spent half their time as an apprentice the last year or two of college? In addition, their experience and knowledge could only be better than the preparation they have now.

You pretentious snob. I went to night school while raising a family, graduating in 1985, because I loved the law, and pursued a dream. I did well, but ironically, only practiced law briefly - and then returned to communications, where I was happier. And did (and do) a better job, one enriched by my law degree. Please reread your effort - you are an insufferable snob here who is incredibly lazy about really reaching out about the experience of many of us who never knew anything about 150K, but something about the Fourth Amendment, the Uniform Commercial Code and civil rights law, and have acted upon them since then. Get your behind out to a law school in, say, the Midwest - sit through a few classes, discover the motivation. Then come talk to the rest of us. You insufferable snob (temporary, I hope).

I find it reeks of irony that the author of the blog sermonizes us on taking public-interest oriented positions when he himself works under the umbrella of a corporation. The old adage "practice what you preac" speaks wonders here.

Wow, what a curious set of thoughts. Having practiced law for many years and taught at a private law school for more years, I agree with some of what Mr. Cohen writes. He is correct, I believe that law school tuition is unnecessary high. In preparing for testimony before a state bar commission on "access to justice," I did a study on tuition increases at my own law school since my student days. Over the period of the study, the consumer price index had quadrupled but tuition had increased ninefold. The quality of the professional education had not increased significantly. Indeed, a pretty good argument could be made that it had decreased because the faculty had become ever more 'eggheaded.' The faculty were not interested much in the practice of law; it was in large measure to escape the onerous demands of the practice of law that they sought refuge in the law school. The curriculum came to include more and more esoteric and liberal arts type courses that may well have been interesting, but realistically were of rather little value as preparation for the practice of law. Tuition kept going up because of the availability of educational loan money, the students' willingness (probably the wrong word in many cases) to incur very large debts, and the university's practice of skimming off a good share of the law school's profits to support things like the graduate program in the theology department. And let us not forget the American Bar Association's role in the steady increase of law school revenues. The ABA entered into a consent decree with the US Justice Department (before it became corrupted) that (if I recall correctly) essentially admitted a form of price-fixing in its accreditation activities. In sum, there is much to be pretty disgusted about in American legal education.

On the other hand, how are these systemic problems helped by conscripting all law school graduates for two years of required service in 'the public sector'? Do you equate, Mr. C., working for the government with working for, e.g., the Salvation Army? And how many conscripted new law grads would do what many new law grads have done for years, i.e., get a job in government that will give them a leg up in getting a job with those law factories you abhor? A stint with the IRS or SEC or EPA can be turned to good use working for a big firm on behalf of big money corporate interests. Lastly, why do you ignore that substantial sector of the legal practice that serves non-corporate clients, the solo practitioners and small firm lawyers who help people with 'personal plights'? Surely the most legally underrepresented sector of American society is not units of government or not-for-profit institutions, but rather middle class and working class citizens who are hard-pressed to afford the services of any competent lawyers. They are the ones paying those inflated prices for products and services that you complain about, Mr. C. How about some help for them while you're conscripting young lawyers?

lala

I did. Cohen describes a vicious circle of high law school tuitions, enabled by lucrative starting salaries, enabled by law firms and clients that will pay them, enabled by the high costs of getting it wrong, caused by too much litigation, caused by too many lawyers, caused by lucrative starting salaries, etc. It's a Gordian knot that calls for an axe.

I'm wondering why those of us who made the choice to enter the "public interest" sector aren't represented in these comments? My loans aren't as high as some since I went to a state school, but it is still unbelievably hard to manage them now on my nonprofit salary. Why? Because this work is not valued by our society. It has nothing to do with Corporate America. I am happy for CA to have competent attorneys. (Although one friend, incredulous, said to me upon her acceptance of a large firm's offer, "How can they think my brain is worth $125K at age 24?" That was 6 yrs ago and they would undoubtedly pay her at least $145K now.) It *is* pretty unbelievable.

Since I run a Pro Bono Program, I value large firms a great deal for their commitment to pro bono and the resources they bring to bear on those cases. Firm attorneys are not the enemy of public interest as some in these comments have suggested. The real "silent" enemy is that we allow our society to continue to devalue legal work when the clients can't pay. As if I (and many others who make this choice) didn't pass the same bar exam. If I had wanted a firm job, I could have gotten one. It wasn't the life I wanted and I'm not sorry I made the choice. I just may have to get a second job at night to make ends meet. It is totally disheartening.

Is there anything more pathetic than a bunch of lawyers complaining about high cost of living or tuition. Here's a bunch of clowns whose sole purpose in live is to explain the intricacies of the LAW which their compadres designed. They are "wordsmiths", they deal in words alone. Words which are intentionally confusing, so that they can be ever ready to tell you what the words mean. If this isn't the sweetest circular racket in the world I don't know what is. The only other so-called profession that can even come close is the priest, who also wears robes, and employs the same mumbo jumbo of a dead language (latin) to protect his guild from the layman.
There is no earthly reason why law cannot be written in plain language so that anyone with basic comprehension can figure out what the law says without the aid of the con artist in the middle, who charges an arm and a leg to explain it to us. Why should anyone be able to design a language only a few can understand and then foist that onto the general public?
The is perhaps the biggest con job ever pulled on the world and remember that from the best of these con artists, we select our judges.
When the last lawyer is strangled by the entrails of the last priest we'll have some tranquility in societies. No one NEEDS a lawyer but like the priest, they have intruded into every aspect of life, from birth to death. The most endearing thing you can say about a lawyer, is that they usually have clean fingernails and no callouses,,, and small wonder.
Aspiring lawyers should be made to read Fred Rodell's book "Woe unto you Lawyers" so that they might choose a more productive field of work.

"What a Sorry Lot" wants all lawyers strangled and all priests disemboweled because of their intentional use of language to create confusions and mystifications. He thinks all laws can be written in language that anyone with a reasonable mind and comprehension of language can understand. He puts me in mind of an exercise written, I think, by then-Cornell law professor Bob Summers. A city posts notices in all the public parks: "NO VEHICLES ALLOWED IN THE PARK." Does the prohibition apply to cars? Sure. Trucks? Certainly. Bicycles? Uh . . . Tricycles propelled by elderly citizens? Tricycles propelled by three year olds? Motor scooters? Sure. Foot propelled scooters? Skateboards? Baby buggies? Strollers? Anyone who thinks that writing a law or ordinance or regulation that is easy to understand by 'the average Joe' and whose outer limits are easily perceived hasn't had any experience in doing so and misunderstands the limits of language. Take it from someone who has written quite a few rules and quite a few contracts and quite a few examination questions: writing clearly ain't that easy. Is that clear?

For those of us attorneys out in the boonies, one of the problems with that scenario is that funding for some "do good" jobs, i.e., public defender, legal aid, are woefully underfunded, historically as well as the recent past (legal aid under reagan was drastically cut back.) Additionally, many of the public interest groups want several years litigation experience before they will hire. I agree with the sentiment but am not sure the method is viable.

As is typical of a lawyer, you've used a lot of words and said nothing. Certainly nothing to refute my contention that law is nothing but a racket, making lawyers con artists.
Prior to the publication of his book, which essentially debunks law as a profession, Professor Rodell submitted the draft to a lawyer/judge friend who, when asked what he thought of it said, "Sure, you're right but why give the game away?" As you clowns are fond of saying, I rest my case.

My response to P-Bosley Slop Throg is "Everyone loves a good conspiracy theory." However, like most of them, yours does not make much sense.

Blaming lawyers for the complex system is like blaming mechanics for automobiles being complex.

The reason for the complex system is not some great conspiracy where all of us lawyers get together and hatch an evil plan, it is because life is complicated. There are literally millions of people in this country that every day have thousands of things happen to them. This results in a virtually limitless range of possible scenarios.

To try and cover these, complex laws are often required. If you actually took a minute and read through them, you will see that most statutes are actually written in rather plain english, they simply get a little long trying to cover every reasonably foreseeable outcome. I think the "No vehicles allowed" example is a perfect one.

Being a strict free-enterprise economist, I at first struggled with the idea of practicing law, I felt like Lawyers did not add value to a product, but rather just added costs.

I have come to realize that this is not true. We, as lawyers, advocate for people. We provide them a very valuable service that they are willing to pay handsomely for. A penny saved is a penny earned, and practicing good judgment and avoiding future costs based on the advice of your attorney is as good as adding directly to the revenue line.

So, "What a sorry Bunch" or whatever, go on and keep believing your conspiracy theory if you want, but the sheer number of people that would have to be involved is astronomical. If people could accomplish this task better and cheaper, don't you think someone would have established a multi-billion dollar industry to replace the supposedly corrupt one we have now?

Believe what you like, but realize that it makes you seem like a crazy person.

Poster 'attorney at law', it looks like I've been the victim of blogworld identity theft. The last post that purports to be written by P. Bosley Slogthrop was apparently written by "What a sorry lot". I'm a retired lawyer myself and certainly agree with you about life's complexity and the source of the need for lawyers. I thought I made this clear in my response to "What a sorry lot."

I realized that after I posted it. However, he did, and I did as part of my response, create a mild anagram of your name: Slop-throg

Instead of slogthrop- I am not sure what it was supposed to mean but, not much of what he was saying actually made a lot of rational sense. I appreciate the clarification.

Tad:

Law is business. That's all. Just as every profession has it's public and private sector of business, so does law. Law defines the interrelations of individuals in our daily business. We are indeed over head, but so are accountants and HR managers.

Law is only pie in the sky nonsense to people who somehow believe that the world should be "fair."

Some accoutants work for the government for nickles, others make good money in the private sector. Poor people need accountants too, and doctors and mechanics. I don't see any obligations put on those professions.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.