GLASS HALF FULL PART 2 – Yesterday I made the easy case for optimism: Americans of all income levels will have more access to law and legal services in the twenty-first century. Today I tackle the harder case: after a wrenching period of change the legal profession and law schools will be improved.
The profession will benefit greatly from smaller law classes filled with students with a realistic idea of what lawyers actually do and earn. Current law students come in spite of a headwind, rather than because they are history majors with no other plans, and as such are much likelier to enjoy law school and law practice. One of the hidden causes of rampant lawyer unhappiness is that too many lawyers were not thoughtful about coming to law school and are later disappointed with their choice. The college graduates who do not go to law school will also be better off, pursuing careers for which they are better suited. Fewer law graduates means less competition for the remaining jobs.
The actual job of being a lawyer will also improve. The best of times for Big Law profits has been the worst of times for the lawyers themselves. Big Law has led a boom in both remuneration and misery. The changes ahead will force “alternative billing” for many projects, encouraging creativity and efficiency rather than the grind of maximizing hourly billing. Much of the less interesting work will be computerized or outsourced, leaving only the most challenging and interesting work.
Competition from Axiom and other virtual law firms will allow creative lawyers flexibility in the terms and conditions of their employment, allowing some lawyers to do Big Law type work on their own schedules. Surveys have regularly shown that Big Law lawyers would take less money in return for more free time and autonomy.
The same trends will make the small firm and solo practitioners who survive better off. First, some portion of Big Law will separate from the most profitable firms and fall back to the pack, possibly rejoining what now resembles two separate professions (Big Law and everyone else).
Second, while much legal work will be lost, the work that remains will be more challenging and interesting. At every level of the profession, entrepreneurialism and creativity will be required. Lawyers will not be able to count on hanging a shingle and serving clients who have to see them. Instead, the lawyers that survive will be the lawyers that can demonstrate the value of their insight and services. This will be hard, but satisfying for the lawyers who make it.
It will be a galvanizing time for the profession and that will draw all lawyers together, putting other concerns into perspective. It seems likely that in ten years the managing partners of large law firms and the deans of American law schools will gather over drinks to discuss with bemusement the rankings and other silliness that obsessed the profession during the 1990s and 2000s.