Early Career Lawyers Shifting Preferences Towards In-Person Work

Among early career lawyers, preferences may be shifting towards in-person work options and away from fully remote schedules. A recent survey of 2018 law school graduates found that satisfaction levels were lowest among those employed in full-time remote positions, as compared to those in hybrid or in-person roles. The National Association for Law Placement’s (NALP) Class of 2018 Study of Law School Employment & Satisfaction is the latest annual effort designed to gauge the experiences of early career legal professionals. It includes responses from nearly 1500 alumni from 30 law schools working in law firms (51 percent of respondents), businesses and corporations (14 percent), and government agencies (13 percent). 

Likely due to the longevity of the pandemic and the accessibility of vaccines, the responses from the class of 2018 demonstrate a shift in attitude away from remote work and towards in-person options, relative to 2017 respondents. 

• The Class of 2018 reported lower satisfaction with fully remote working options than those in 2017. Among those working remotely, 79 percent of 2018 graduates reported satisfaction compared to 83 percent of 2017 graduates. 

• Both the class of 2017 and the class of 2018 reported the highest satisfaction with a hybrid schedule, although the class of 2018’s satisfaction ticked down compared to the previous class. Among 2018 graduates working hybrid schedules, 83 percent reported satisfaction while 88 percent of 2017 graduates reported satisfaction. 

• Among lawyers working fully in the office, satisfaction ticked up one percentage point for 2018 graduates (82 percent) compared to 2017 (81 percent). 

While many firms expect to continue a hybrid approach with time split between the office and remote, some have returned to fully in-person schedules. And a few have recently announced their intention to allow lawyers to continue to work remotely on a full-time basis. 

Report from Thomson Reuters Institute Finds Law Firm Leaders Most Concerned about Recruiting and Retaining Talent

According to a newly published Thomson Reuters Institute report, law firm leaders see talent as their biggest concern. The report summarized interview findings from several dozen global law firm leaders, and explored the most pressuring current issues, which also included the challenge of creating a compelling firm culture. 

Leaders expressed concern about the upward wage pressures resulting from the current competitive environment for firm associates. And almost all leaders—regardless of firm size— spoke of feeling financial pressure. Those who feel unable to keep up with the salary increases said that they are unsure of how to recruit and retain associates in this market. Leaders at some of the large firms mentioned that they have expanded their geographic recruiting base. While this has increased the talent pool for those large firms, it also means that smaller and mid-size firms who did not previously compete for talent with large firms, are now feeling the impact.

In addition to recruiting, leaders are thinking more meaningfully about ways to increase retention. They note that, given the recent reliance on remote work, culture-building efforts should be a priority within firms. This means addressing burnout and wellbeing concerns among employees, as well as finding ways to increase “cohesion and camaraderie” among teams that no longer work together physically on a daily basis. Leaders shared that many associates continue to request flexibility.

Leaders also noted an increasing emphasis on creating ESG (environmental, social, and governance) policies and initiatives, which they see as a part of defining firm culture. ESG, they report, impacts both talent recruitment and retention and client relations. With employees working remotely, it becomes more important to ensure that the firms’ values and priorities, and related ESG initiatives are in alignment, and are coming across consistently in both written and spoken communications. 

Finally, leaders said that they are worried about client management. With their many internal firm concerns related to talent, culture, and the changing ways of working—including technology—they fear that client relationships will not receive the time and attention they need.  

Duke Takes Top Spot in Above the Law’s Top 50 Law Schools

Duke University’s Law School ticked up three spots to take top billing in the 2022 Above the Law Top 50 Law Schools. The ranking, which relies solely upon graduate outcome data including legal employment (quality and quantity), educational cost, and student debt (see full methodology here), may be of particular interest to prospective law students interested in pursuing law firm employment.  

Duke Law is followed by the University of Virginia, Cornell, University of Chicago, and Vanderbilt, which jumped ten places from 2021 to enter this year’s top five. University of Michigan Law dropped out of the top five in 2022. Yale, Harvard, and Stanford all dropped from the top ten in 2022 due to lower scores in the employment categories. 

Considering Public Interest Law? Look for these Attributes During the School Selection Process.

Many undergraduate students considering law school do so with an eye towards public service, but only about one-third of law school graduates actually accept public interest positions. This is likely due to the significantly lower median salaries for public service roles and the high student debt many law school graduates accrue, as well as the less traditional recruiting process for public interest roles. 

Law schools, however, are becoming increasingly proactive about creating pathways for students to access meaningful, public interest careers. During the school selection process, as a prospective public interest law student, you should consider more than just the academic curriculum, broadening your perspective to include the following:

• Student Network 

Review and ask about the number of current students and alumni who are entering or have entered into public service. If you already know the fields that you’re interested in—international, government, advocacy, public interest firm, etc.—determine if there are alumni networks in these areas that will be available to you as a student. Recruiting and employment in these fields will be more dependent on proactive networking so ensure that your chosen schools will bolster the development of your public interest legal network.

• Activities and Programs in Public Interest 

Students can and should show their dedication to public service by participating in volunteer activities, taking part in public interest student organizations, and getting involved in pro bono or clinic-based projects sponsored by the school. Ask schools that you’re considering what programs are in place for current students.

• Summer Internships and Programs

Summer Fellowships / Sponsored Internships: Working directly with a non-profit, government, NGO, IGO, or private public interest organization can provide meaningful legal training and experience, as well as insight into the environment in which you most want to work. Many top law schools including Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and NYU provide generous funding for students who wish to pursue unpaid, or minimally paid, public interest work in the summer. Review the summer funding options at schools you are considering.

Summer splits: A summer split is sponsored by a law firm. The summer associate spends half the summer working at the firm and the other half working at an approved public sector organization. While some firms will pay the student a summer associate salary for the entire summer, others will offer a salary for the time spent at the firm combined with a stipend for the associate’s public service work. This provides diverse work experience for students who are not yet sure of their future goals. Find a list of firms that sponsor summer splits here. And ask schools if any current students or alumni have participated in this type of summer internship, or if they have relationships with any of the sponsoring firms. 

Post-Graduate Fellowships: While these can take a variety of formats, fellowships provide funding for graduates to work at an approved public service organization for a specified time period. Earlier this week, Columbia Law School announced the Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (BLB&G) Fellowship Program, which will sponsor one graduate of Columbia Law School for two years to take on a litigation role for a public interest organization prior to joining BLB&G’s shareholder rights litigation practice as a third-year associate. The Fellow will attend firm meetings and take part in a mentorship program while working for a qualifying public organization. Do some digging on the number of fellowships available for graduating students.

• Law School-Funded Debt Repayment / Reduction programs

While there are federal programs that encourage students to go into public service, consider also any law school-sponsored debt reduction or loan forgiveness programs. Yale and NYU, among others, run programs to support graduates who choose lower paying public interest work by relieving them of some of the monetary burden of their student debt. 

Pursuing public interest law may not be the easiest or most traditional path, but law schools have never been more supportive of students wishing to make a positive impact. 

“Some of the most consequential legal work happens in the public interest sector. Lawyers can be powerful advocates for marginalized groups, using the courts to help create better, more equitable outcomes,” BLB&G executive committee member, Jerry Silk said, upon announcing the fellowship with Columbia Law.

Consider this when you Re-apply to Law School

The last application cycle did not work out in the way you had hoped. Perhaps you didn’t receive a seat at your dream school or within your desired geographic location. Whatever your experience, you now find yourself thinking about re-applying to law school. The good news is that law schools will highly value you, as a re-applicant, for your persistence and tenacity.

Before you begin the re-applicant process, assess your initial application effort. Did you receive any acceptances, or waitlist offers? What components of your application were weak?

• Consider your school selection. Did you apply only to elite or reach programs? Did you get into any programs that could offer you a solid foundation for your career? Consider carefully if declining any seats and reapplying is the appropriate decision for you.

• When in the cycle did you apply? Applying later can negatively impact an otherwise qualified candidate. 

• Did your LSAT/GRE score and undergraduate GPA fall within the average ranges for admitted applicants at your preferred schools?

• Did your application materials present your strongest case? Are written materials clear, grammatically correct, and polished? Did your resume and personal statement adequately demonstrate your commitment to the study of law, as well as show your abilities in critical and creative thinking, and/or leadership, and/or teamwork?

Once you identify your last submission’s weaknesses, consider some of these strategies to improve your likelihood of success this year. 

• Apply earlier in the admissions cycle.

• Consider more accessible programs that could prepare you for your desired career. 

• If you have a low/marginal undergraduate GPA, consider taking additional coursework to bolster it. And be sure to address any red flags, such as a low GPA, in optional essays.  In doing so, you don’t want to make excuses for your low GPA.  Rather, you want to guide the reader to those areas of your life, such as professional projects or leadership roles, that you believe are much more indicative of your ability to thrive in a rigorous environment.

• Think about how your test scores compare to those of admitted students. Are you willing to get a tutor or take a course to improve your score? The good news is that most law schools will only consider your highest score, and you will have the option to address low LSAT scores in the optional essays too. 

• Gain intern or volunteer experience(s) that demonstrate your interest in and commitment to the study of law.  

Update your application materials, keeping in mind that schools often review your updated submission alongside your initial application. You will want to ensure that your updated materials provide new insight to the Admissions Committee on who you are and how you will fit into their program. 

• Submit a new personal statement. Show commitment and don’t be afraid to expose some vulnerability. Discuss your re-application and the reasons behind it. Some schools may ask explicitly for the reason you did not matriculate into a law program the prior year. Ensure that your writing is clear, cohesive, and polished. 

• Some law schools request that you provide new reference letters while others do not. If possible, do include at least one new reference letter from a recent professor or a current professional manager who can attest to your professionalism and/or intellectual capabilities. It is also good practice to let your previous year’s references know that you plan to reuse their submissions.  

• Update your resume to include the activities and employment you’ve engaged in since your last application. Also, consider strategically, what activities may round out your resume. Look for internship or volunteer activities that will give you relevant experience and that may set you apart from other applicants. 

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