NY Times: LSAT Takers and Law School Enrollments Plunge Amidst Poor Placement Prospects

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2012 12:31 AM GMT
    A pretty large drop...

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2012/11/ny-times--3.html
  • Whipmagic

    Posts: 1481

    Nov 25, 2012 3:00 AM GMT
    A good start. It's more than time that the legal profession practices some birth control. The problem with the lawyer overpopulation is that they create their own demand in a viscious cycle. A lawyer talks a client into suing someone frivolously, and, no matter how harebrained the case is, the defendant has to get an attorney as well. Now the second attorney has his hooks in a new client who he in turn can talk into filing lawsuits. And corporations need hoards of lawyers to lawsuit-proof themselves because of these nuisance suits. No one, except the lawyers, is served by this, and valuable resources have been diverted into unproductive legal wrangling.
  • groundcombat

    Posts: 945

    Nov 25, 2012 3:23 AM GMT
    Whipmagic said And corporations need hoards of lawyers to lawsuit-proof themselves because of these nuisance suits. No one, except the lawyers, is served by this, and valuable resources have been diverted into unproductive legal wrangling.


    Probably an overstatement here? Arguably we've all benefitted from some of the concepts of social responsibility that are the products of these suits. Coffee is generally not served at superheated temperatures, airbags are automatically disabled where there are conditions present that suggests it could injury a child, etc. Not to say that the balance is perfect, but to say that no one but the lawyers benefit is going too far IMO.
  • NerdLifter

    Posts: 1509

    Nov 25, 2012 4:08 AM GMT
    groundcombat said
    Whipmagic said And corporations need hoards of lawyers to lawsuit-proof themselves because of these nuisance suits. No one, except the lawyers, is served by this, and valuable resources have been diverted into unproductive legal wrangling.

    Probably an overstatement here? Arguably we've all benefitted from some of the concepts of social responsibility that are the products of these suits. Coffee is generally not served at superheated temperatures, airbags are automatically disabled where there are conditions present that suggests it could injury a child, etc. Not to say that the balance is perfect, but to say that no one but the lawyers benefit is going too far IMO.

    I don't think Whip meant by his post that the purpose/function of all legal actions are pointless and frivolous. He was strictly pointing out, with a little hyperbole, that as a society, we have become overly litigious. On top of that law schools are churning out far more law degrees than there are open law positions.

    Lawsuits have their place and purpose and are very important when used correctly. However, I can certainly think of a few examples, such as the coined "patent troll," where litigation is used as a device to gain money or leverage rather than a true legal remedy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2012 4:09 AM GMT
    groundcombat said
    Whipmagic said And corporations need hoards of lawyers to lawsuit-proof themselves because of these nuisance suits. No one, except the lawyers, is served by this, and valuable resources have been diverted into unproductive legal wrangling.


    Probably an overstatement here? Arguably we've all benefitted from some of the concepts of social responsibility that are the products of these suits. Coffee is generally not served at superheated temperatures, airbags are automatically disabled where there are conditions present that suggests it could injury a child, etc. Not to say that the balance is perfect, but to say that no one but the lawyers benefit is going too far IMO.


    Except all these ands are much better served WITHOUT the multimillion dollar settlements. This has to be one of the most economically inefficient methods for achieving these ends. Most European countries have stronger protections for consumers without the endless litigation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2012 5:54 AM GMT
    Good thing I never expected to go take the LSAT. I only plan on taking the GMAT. Even though I'm a freshman in college, the two schools I'm looking at doing my master's at are USC (Cali) and Columbia University.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2012 9:56 AM GMT
    Less competition. Good for me. I think its better that younger people not got straight for law school. I laugh how many people I know go & start it, burn out then never finish it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2012 10:01 AM GMT
    Time for me to apply!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2012 4:23 PM GMT
    There will always be a huge demand for good, competent lawyers. The most powerful nations in the world are run by lawyers. The most important jobs in government, for-profit mega corporations, national nonprofit organizations, etc., are all occupied by lawyers. This world will not survive without competent lawyers.
  • groundcombat

    Posts: 945

    Nov 30, 2012 11:55 PM GMT
    redacting said
    groundcombat said
    Whipmagic said And corporations need hoards of lawyers to lawsuit-proof themselves because of these nuisance suits. No one, except the lawyers, is served by this, and valuable resources have been diverted into unproductive legal wrangling.


    Probably an overstatement here? Arguably we've all benefitted from some of the concepts of social responsibility that are the products of these suits. Coffee is generally not served at superheated temperatures, airbags are automatically disabled where there are conditions present that suggests it could injury a child, etc. Not to say that the balance is perfect, but to say that no one but the lawyers benefit is going too far IMO.


    Except all these ands are much better served WITHOUT the multimillion dollar settlements. This has to be one of the most economically inefficient methods for achieving these ends. Most European countries have stronger protections for consumers without the endless litigation.


    I guess I'm not sure how these ends are achieved without the suits. I was under the impression these ends are a result of the suits. I suppose you could simply legislate the same results but that doesn't do anything for the guy who lost a leg in an unsafe automobile, for example.