THE FUTURE OF
LEGAL EDUCATION
Brad Myers, Interim Dean
University of North Dakota
School of Law
I want to take the opportunity in my last
column as interim dean of the University
of North Dakota (UND) School of Law to
offer some of my perspectives on the future
of legal education. Here I want to focus on
national legal education trends, rather than
things happening at UND or in our region.
The reimagination of legal education started
more than a decade ago. It began with a
reassessment of how and what we taught
aspiring lawyers. The conversation began in
earnest with the publication of Educating
Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law
and Best Practices in Legal Education in 2007
and 2008. These publications led to much
more critical commentary on pedagogy, the
best ways to produce practice ready lawyers,
and the goals of legal education.
At the risk of making a very complicated
discussion sound simple, we determined the
best way to train lawyers involves smaller
class sizes, considerably more assessment and
feedback, and more guided and reflective
experiential learning. I want to stay away
from these very important educational
topics and focus on the fiscal aspects of legal
education. What we have identified as best
28
THE GAVEL
practices are labor intensive and expensive.
The business and finances of legal education
limit the resources we have. As a business
lawyer, I ask if we can find the financial
resources to give the next generation of
lawyers the best educational experience.
Law school resources start with tuition.
Market conditions indicate increasing tuition
will not likely be a source of additional
revenue in the near future. Law students
simply will not take on any further debt
to finance their education. Although the
average debt for law school graduates
actually dropped in 2017, for the first
time since 2010, private school graduates
still had debt of about $130,000, while
public school graduates had debt of about
$92,000. What we have seen in admissions
is students paying careful attention to the
cost of their education and a willingness to
attend the institution that offers them the
best value. Law schools have responded by
offering more discounts to tuition. Although
published tuition rates remain high, the
effective tuition actually collected from
students has dropped. Legal education
probably collects as much tuition from
students as the market will currently bear.
If students will not pay more, another way to
increase revenue is to enroll more students.
Unfortunately, the lack of jobs for graduates
limits the ability to increase enrollment.
Legal employment, at least jobs that require
a person to have a JD, is flat. While the
National Association on Law Placement
reported an increase to 71.8 percent of 2017
graduates who found jobs that required
bar passage, this increase appears primarily
driven by a decrease in the number of
graduates. The actual number of jobs has
been flat or decreased for the third year in a
row and the number of jobs is down almost
20 percent from its peak in 2007. Note that
some of the jobs in this category were part-
time or temporary. These numbers indicate
the employment picture for JD graduates
nationwide does not justify an increase in
the number of students. Law schools should
expect to experience increasing pressure
to limit JD enrollments to the number of
graduates who can reasonably expect to find
work.
Without more JD students or increased
tuition, law schools must look to other places
to raise revenue. Already, many law schools
have looked to establish non-JD programs.
These generally take the form of masters
in legal studies (MLS) or LL.M. degrees.
MLS degrees usually consist of one to two
years of classes drawn from the regular law
school curriculum. LL.M. degrees come in
two types. The traditional ones consist of
advanced study in a specific topic area like
taxation or intellectual property. Increasingly,
however, law schools are offering LL.M.s