vicksburg. we focus on civil war leadership. what talks on general robert e lee. we are at the gettysburg college . wednesday features them. speakers include historians. and on friday we can include the conference with author tj stiles. all next week beginning 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span three. and the eagle -- a legal conference a law school professor discussed the future of law school. this is from the seventh circuit bar associations annual meeting. it is an hour and a half.

thank you for making time on the program for this conversation about the future of our profession i am randy shepard i ended up spending most of my adult life in the supreme court. i now sit doing senior service. and i have an appointment over at the mccain school of law. to my right is rebecca corliss. spent more than decade on the colorado supreme court. she left their ten or 11 years ago. she does all sorts of research and programmatic work. on the improvement of courts into the improvement of legal education and the legal profession. and then professor anderson

certainly a man of circuit if there ever was one after his legal education at the university of chicago became a clerk despite his recent career i will say there's nobody has done more intriguing work. i will begin with the words was setting the stage. not necessarily know about in detail. they provide considerable foundation for evaluating the current state of law schools both now and in the future.

you could actually describe recent developments by using just eight words rising tuition, massive debt fewer jobs and fewer applicants. to begin laying the foundation today. no mystery to anybody that tuition and higher education has been rising for the lifetime of virtually all of us here it exceeds twice the consumer price index. it has in fact been rising at a rate so rapid at the finance officer that they have created a new measure is called the higher education price index.

it is designed to give a more accurate reading of how much and what ought not be called the sticker price of how fast the sticker price has been going up in the two decades that just ended the general rate of an inflation for higher ed was 71 percent. but the rate in law schools is not 71 percent over that time but it has been rising at the present a year in recent decades.

undergraduates and law students. rising to the point where americans now owe more in education debt than the zero on their homes. it's really quite a stunning change. in the american debt picture. the average law student debt on the way out the door is about $85,000 for students who have gone to private schools. it has been easy to read about in the wall street journal. i think it is called parents plus.

for them to empower their children to borrow more money. if the parents would cosign. and then in the federal government would enter a guarantee so that more money could be borrowed. it's now clear that parents plus is having an effect on the disposable incomes of working middle class parents not just on their children but on the collection of their parents. it has become a big part of what it means to not only be at university graduate but law graduate. third, fewer jobs one of the things we as lawyers didn't notice unless we have a child are very close friend who was looking for work over the last two decades is that we had been turning out more graduates interning out more law license holders than there were a jobs.

the reason we didn't notice that unless we have some meat directly involved with it. it was reported. it was quite ordinary. it will be a great year. now nine months or ten months. and that sounded like a very happy result.

the change of the reporting system. how many law graduates find it for which you have to have a law license. the answer to that has been last year it was 59 percent. of all of the people who turned out the school, people found ongoing work full-time for which you have to have a lot license. the answer to that is 59 percent. that number has stabilized and has been as low as 57% but the number has stabilized over the last couple of years it still means that a lot of people don't find work the other

reason it has stabilized of course is that the number of a the new law grads keeps declining. the way in which you calculate the percentage is altered. the fact is over the last five or six years the number of jobs full-time license required type jobs has continued to decline. as recently as five years ago attended to be something like 20,000 mind you we were graduating with the 40 to 45,000. that number has fallen to 23,700. a slower decline perhaps than earlier in the decade.

the college seniors into second-generation and college law advisors are no dummies. they can read those. it has been a dramatic change in how many people apply to go to law school. within the last decade the normal number and it was the highest number we have ever seen in the country the all-time high was a hundred thousand 600 applicants it seems to be more important to focus on applicants. that number had been something like a hundred thousand. it dropped dramatically 2016. the number people that come down and put in their applications.

as of last week so far this year there was 50,200. that is down from last year just about percent. i think that as a number that we could say has probably stabilized but there are some things happening inside that number that are particularly attractive for instance of the people that actually get into school those who come into school with those of over 160 are half of what they were five years ago. the number who had 150 to 160 is stabilized. in the number of people that come in under 150 is up 80% from where it was. a very noticeable shift. others might say the talent and suitability for law school. a change in student legal aid.

as the competition chasing the numbers. it helps ratings and of course because you would like to have the smartest students possible in your law school. the result of that is the amount of merit-based aid has gone up 10%. i haven't spoken yet to an actual admissions officer. both meant merit and most of that goes to the people that have the best metrics. it is the folks at the back end of the line will end up

they are profile. it is not as good as the agent in caucasians and hispanic applicants they have lower metrics and it's harder for law schools i'm find it harder for them to get scholarships and financial assistance. we have some schools in the circuit by the way don't charge any tuition and all. with a few schools to send the students money. they don't charge any tuition actually write checks to those students. it is part of this greater trend. and of course last week in the

news. the passage rates. it is not as good of measure as july. but the february rate here in this state as a lowest that we have ever experienced. on an important note that this is not gone unnoticed by our friends at the academy in the number of people in the academy who say this too will pass we have heard this before is a shrinking number. research done both by various entities which professor anderson is associated about how we change legal education to adjust to what it looks like is really very encouraging in a substantial and is the easiest one to see.

how many actual hands-on experiences do head. it has been dramatically changing over the last two decades. they are determined to do as good a job as a possibly can. we are going to hear some treaty news about all of those trends and we will start with justice. professor henderson and i have to stand because the monitor is only visible from a peer not from our seats. i apologize for breaking up our little trio. i am becky corbis. the trial court and appellate court judge but now are

running a research institute at the institute at the university of denver that we refer to as a sink do you take. it is the worst acronym in the world and i apologize. but we were named by a federal judge. and he wouldn't let me put justice in the name because he thought it was a term that was to susceptible. we work in four different areas. and i had spoken to this assembly on prior occasions but usually in the context of our civil justice reform. we do work in legal education. we work on the family justice side we work on judicial selection and performance.

we identify a problem and gather research and put together wonderful groups of stakeholders. we create models and then we facilitate and monitor the implementation of those models and we measure outcomes. hence think do tank. the problem here which we're talking about this morning. chief justice shepard has already identified which is that in the context of legal education we are struggling with how to prepare from the profession. ..

didn't land full-time employment recognizing law degree, 25% who didn't land full-time employment including professional and nonprofessional. this is the burista number and 71% of third-year law students who believe they have sufficient skills to practice. this set of numbers is really interesting. 71% who think they are locked

and ready to go into law practice, however the law professors who teach them say that that's a 45% and wait for it, the percentage of practitioners who believe that new lawyers have sufficient skills to practice is 23%. so there's a problem there and we at io's developed a project intended to shed some light on ways of addressing this. we created our foundations for practice project. we have support from the hewlett foundation. this is a three-phase project. we put together an advisory committee consisting of practitioners, judges, justices, representatives from the national association of bar, from the national bar and bar

examiners representatives from the public defender's office, aba and even the attorney general of colorado and we developed a plan. the first piece of that plan is to identify the foundations that entry-level lawyers need to practice. the second phase will be to develop measurable models of legal education that supports those foundations and the third will be to align, market needs with hiring practices in order to incan i-- inventize positive improvements. phase one, we developed a survey based on existing research.

and with the assistance of advisory council we distributed that survey through bar associations across 37 states in the country. actually, there were individuals from 50 states who answered but the bar association in 37 states distributed the survey and we had a little bit of cross-over of people who practice in two states. we have 24,137 valid responses to the survey. if any of you answered the survey, thank you for your time. we got over 40,000 actual responses and 24,000 valid responses. respondent base mirrors the

legal profession. in fact, the respondent base is representative of both geographically in terms of the size of firms in which lawyers across the country practice, the amount of money they make and then the demographics themselves . we asked 400 different foundations and characterized the foundations and they, they broadly fallen to three different categories but some of the examples are identify relevant facts, legal issues, critically evaluate and conduct and defend depositions. listen attentively and respectfully, make decisions,

work as part of a team. the three categories into we divided the foundation is as follows, skills, characteristics and competencies. remember, we have 147 foundations and we are dividing them into the three categories, 27% of the foundations were skilled-based, 28% characteristic based and 45% competencies. we also graduated the questions that we asked of the respondents, we asked what's necessary in the short-term. we asked what is advantageous

but not necessary in the short-term, we asked what's necessary over time and we asked what's not relevant at all. the screen right here, bill, doesn't pick up gray so it looks like i'm missing a cylinder in the middle but fortunately not on your screen. so here are the results. 77 foundations identified in the short-term by 50% or more of the respondents. 147 foundations, 77 were identified as necessary in the short-term by 50% more of the respondents but what emerged surprised us. we call it the character and here it is. how does the top 20 of those

foundations identified as necessary in the short term nine are characteristics, ten are competencies and one is a legal skill. there it is, research the law at number 14. the ten competencies, keep confidentiality, arrive on time. this is a millennial issue, right, treaters with respect, respond promptly, take individual responsibility, emotional regulation and self-control, speak professionally, write professionally, exhibit tact and diplomacy. and the characteristics, the other nine, honor, commitments,

integrity and trust worthiness, diligence, strong worth ethic, attention to detail, conscientious, common sense intelligence and a strong moral compass, cumulatively we refer to the whole lawyer but what about legal skills. this is why we go to law school, right, the legal skills show up in the must be acquired over time set of responses. these 20 characteristics are the top 20 or these foundations are the top 20 that must be acquired over time according to our respondent base. here they are, provide in-court trial advocacy, depositions, prepare a case on appeal,

prepare for mediation and all the skills that i suspect all of us would identify either on the transactional or the litigation side of practice as being necessary. but the take away here is we expect people to acquire these over time we don't necessarily expect them to show up at the time that they sign up for work ready to do these things or qualified to do these things. so now here is the second part of the survey, here where it becomes more relevant to all of you. in the second part of the survey we asked respondents to consider the helpfulness of a set of hiring criteria in determining whether a candidate has the foundation they identified as important.

you have to understand, we took as a given the fact that they had already answered the survey and identified what they thought was important and then we said, okay, how would you hire in order to -- we did not ask them how they currently hire. went to yale and harvard and was notes editor of the law review and clerk did a summer clerk shift for cutler. so the notion is that this person would get an interview pretty much any place in the country but does this person really have on his or her in this instant resume that would suggest that he has those foundations that people said

they were looking for. so what would people focus on if they we wanted to hire the whole lawyer can a character, 17 criteria and asked the respond teents rank them from very helpful to very unhelpful. so take a look at the 17 criteria quickly and i will show you how the results turned out. top of the list, legal employment, recommendations ations from practitioners or judges, bottom of the list, law review and journal experience. now this is all respondents.

you will note that the first eight have to do with experience. what the respondents told us is that the character or the whole lawyer metric emerges through experience, we broke out the data by size of firm, government employer, legal services or pd, with firms of 100 plus, class rank and law school move up. with firms of 2 to 100,-a little bit of a shift in the top eight particularly the second four but it's still the same top eight. in smaller firms or solo practitioner settings, substantialized classes, specialized law school classes move up which makes sense because there's a little bit

more demand for actual ability to jump in on a particular topic. government employment, the top eight still the same, there's a little bit of a shift in priority and then legal services or the public defender's office, again, you see a particular law school course specializing in criminal area moves up. so what does all of this tell us as we are thinking about the future of legal education and the future of employment of lawyers? first it tells us that practice ready from new lawyers of the profession. we all expect new lawyers to learn on the job but we do expect them to emerge from law

school as whole lawyers with a blend of legal skills, professional competencies and the character, blend of foundation that is we have labeled whole, experience really matters. today the foundations for practiced project has put out two reports, both of which are available on hour website, the first really focuses on the evaluation of the data in terms of what respondents are looking for in new lawyers, that's where the whole lawyer and the character quotion emerged and the component.

we are moving on phase two of this project, models of legal education that support these foundations, working both with the law schools and with employers to shape ways whereby employers can recognize on a law school resume or some other form of hiring that these individuals have the criteria that they have identified as important. as a final note, i merely want to give credit where credit is due, the director of the foundations for practice practice at aisles and, indeed, of our legal education section, it's a woman by the name of alan, who some of you may know and she was supposed to be here today and a medical circumstance kept her from you and i wanted

to tell you that she developed the project and her information appears before you. i look forward to the discussion about this and what it means for the evolution of law school and of the profession. bill. [applause] that was a good pinch-hitting job, i will say. great to be back given a talk to a court that i used to clerk on. the point i'm going to go through today and the central thesis i want to advance is we want -- the future law school is going to drive from the future of law practice and law practice is changing dramatically. i think evolves over a period of time. it's like the frog boiling

metaphor, for those who have heard it, put the water and heat it up but if you toss nit hot water, it will jump out immediately and i think to a certain extent that's a lot what is going on with millennials these days. we lack that fresh perspective. i will give you an overview. going on this idea that judge shepherd gave, here is data that i was able to calculate data that was posted on aba website. average class size, those who entered in 1971, quite a while ago, the average class size was

246 and hovered in that vicinity for over 40 years. 262 and dropped to 182 in the last four years, record for small entering class size. what's been going on in the background is that we have been adding more law schools since 1971. 147 law schools in 1971. we hit a high-watermark of 204. there's been some closures but it's a tremendous amount of fixed costs that are spread over a larger number of law schools. if you imagine a hotel, an airline or restaurant chain that lost 31% of paid customers which is the delta between 282 and 182, you'd see massive consolidation that was taking place or regain pricing power. universities, we don't think that way. and so we are kind of loping

along trying to figure out what the next move is going to be. ii want to tie this into the labor market what the. one more piece of labor market data before getting into that. this is the number of aba graduates and we can extrapolate what the graduating classes are going to be by the size of the entering classes and you can see those bright green bars and go to levels of law school graduates that we haven't seen since 1970's. it seems to me it's far beyond and structural and a lot of people look at the data without thinking too much deeper and say eventually this is going to rejuvnate because we will develop to lowering number and everything will be fine.

the nature of law practice changing in such a way that we can't bank and build back up. someone alluded to in the report by the chief administration, seventh circuit, filings are down. to look at this from a cohistic perspective, the market for u.s., legal service in the united states about $290 billion, these are enterprises that are in business, this wonderful from the bureau, you can drive how much you're selling and legal services to individuals and to organizations, you can see there's a big split about $70 billion to individuals and and going to organizations. there's a famous study, at least

famous in my circles called the chicago study that was done in -- published in 1980's and there was a finding, if you want to understand the structure of the bar, find out who the clients are. from the clients you can tell a lot, this is called the two atmosphere theory. really the lawyers enjoyed enormous spoils, law firm lawyers. this is going back over 20 years now and almost certainly that pattern has continued forward. now, this has really been

implications for law school because my students show up on day one with an idea of what law practice that comes from pop culture and this is different from the statistics are pretty overwhelming about the number of individuals, we would like to vindicate matters and get them full justice, they just don't have the capability to hire competent legal representation. this came to my attention a few weeks ago. here is a couple of really shocking statistics, i can remember sitting there and saying i can't believe the numbers that i'm hearing. the median judgment is $2,400 in state court. that's from a civil matter. is that really, your typical lawyer will said, it's going to be hard for me to make a living from that.

75% of the cases had at least one represented party and you can see the quote that's from the report. confirms the long-standing criticism that the silver justice systems cost too much. that trend, that critic has been in place for a long time but continue to go get more exacerbated to a point where it's really pretty close to a breaking point. now, this is not the type of legal system by which lawyers can earn a living. it looks pretty close to a breakdown. you can get a lot of lawyers for bigger cases but for these the typical case it really, it doesn't work for the lawyer. , is segment of the bar that serves individuals and a segment that serves agents.

there's individuals out there that would like to be able to solve legal problem if they're aware that they have one but they can't afford a lawyer so there's these technology products that are coming online by which that they can engage in self-help and this news report talks 1 legal tech companies being fairly excited or being financed and then there's this quote that pulls out and basically says it's really in the individual market that we are financing it that the legal tech start-ups commit dollars to large law firm segment and really difficult to sell efficiency to large law law

firms. we have tech start-ups that are beginning to fill the void, the justice gap by the inability of the civil court system to accommodate or to -- to be able to marry up practicing lawyers that would make economics grow. i would call the legal industry. if we go back to this chart that i drew. now i'm breaking it down by total amount of spent and you can see on the one end to have spectrum, the numbers at at the bottom, if one of us gets divorce, we are going wipe that out for several hundred people, probably. so it's an imbalanced system. $220 is not a lot of money but if you look to see over half of the dollar spenders spent for the basis of organizations, calculated what their average budget would be, over 50% to have market has 2 million or more to spend on legal services.

this is a list of companies that you could get on, you know, a book, it would be shorter than a yellow pages and these are the folks that spend a lot of money on legal services. now, this group of folks are now in a position where they're complaining about the costs of legal services and they're begin to go look for alternatives to traditional law enforcement practice and so here is an article that comes from the wall street journal and talks about law firms facing new competition. here is another clip that comes from jp morgan, bloomberg on jpmorgan basically hiring developers to develop software to automate jobs that would ordinarily be done by lawyers not so much because lawyers are too expensive. there's no way that the lawyers can actually get through the amount of work that needs to be done and so they're hireing ai

enabled software developers to develop tools to provision their own legal services and this is a trend that's just started to takeoff the ground. so here is -- here is a picture of what's happening in law practice today, you can see this is three trend lines going back to 1997 and it shows 1997 benchmark, this is the first year that the census bureau had system, 20 years from the baseline and you can see the change of employment of employed lawyering, these are w2 lawyers in the law firm sector and government sector and in-house sector. the big lead is in-house has been growing dramatically. it grew from about 34,000 in 1997 to over 105,000. really, there's as many lawyers in-house today as there are domestically.

it's pretty staggering and it's growing, and hiring rate is 7 and a half times lawyers being hired in the in-house legal department than being hired in the law firm sector. even then should surprise folks that if we ignore the top lines, governments hired twice as many lawyers than the private sector, at least since 2006. and i don't think the government it's been on a hiring boom at all. this is telling you that something big and structural is taking place in law practice and basically big corporations between building or buying, they are choosing to build. so having thought about this topic for quite a period of time and doing more field research as opposed to just reading, i've spent a lot of time with in-ous -- in-house legal departments and i came up with that typology

and what i can take away from this is what i call the type 6 client to the far right. this is -- these are sophisticated law firms embedded inside major corporations that have the fte's and the specialization, the budgets that rival almost any law firm in the country. to the certain extent they built capacity inside because they can't buy what they need externally on the market and variety of reasons why law firms transition and fail to transition and fill the gap but probably the biggest one the billable hour, that's how we measure production, that's how we sell our services and compensate lawyers and that's efficiency -- kind of the more for less motra and these folks are taking matters into their own hands. the most significant change is legal operations folks which are the gold boxes to the right.

these are very sophisticated folks that are trying to use data process and technology to people systems to drive up quality and to drive down costs and they're also been aided and abetted by the green bar, procurement folks that are using all sorts of system to rapidly turn portions of the legal service's market into commodities. so this is a big see change and definitely effects -- outlaws practice and ultimately who we hire from law school and the skills they need to succeed. can you raise your hand here if you've ever heard of clock? really? nobody has heard of clock? okay. we have one hand here. corporate legal operations consortium, this is the fastest growing -- this is big and growing really fast and have convention next week in las

vegas, this is the fortune 500, this is the professionals that are in gold that are getting together to compare notes to build systems and provision legal services faster for internal clients. this convention will probably have 1500 people that are in attendance every possible vendor in the ecosystem will -- will be there and basically they are rapidly figuring out ways to -- to drive down their -- their costs and i would say in a way it keeps them pretty far field from civil disputes and so -- this is rapidly changing, again, driving down the demand for legal services into a certain extent a change in the nature of practice and very, very fundamental ways.

.. richard has been writing for a long period of time at a fairly high level of abstraction. now in my field work i see more and more evident of what richard is talking about is coming into fruition. so a model that richard uses and there, i'm going to speak

to the future of legal education because it's the future of what the market is telling us it wants through either clock or the start to tap into latent demand for legal services. richard is making a claim that everything can travel along a five-stage progression, the spoke is tailor made and what we made to do in law school. tailor made an argument to win to court, to a desired transaction. we can get what the spoke is, but he's talking about moving from standardized to system atize to commoditize. it may be free over the internet and it's hard to make a decent living if our product is going to be free over the internet and so, a lot of the lawyers retreat back to this

idea of doing the most technically sophisticated stuff. the brain surgeon that we claim we knew how to do over periods of decades in practice. richard is making a system that this package is where the system of law will reside. you think about the individual hemisphere i talked about before, what's it struggling from? lack of lawyer productivity. we have the inability partially or substantially, perhaps, a function of how the legal system is set up through its procedures and its trial practice and the presumptions that are built into it. it makes it just uneconomical to access services through the format, through the court system. from the corporate perspective there's such a massive amount of need they can't afford to pay large firms to do that,

they need efficiencies so they're doing it themselves. so the package, i think, solves the problems, the lawyer productivity problems on both sides of the hemispheric equation. systems engineering, finance, marketing, product management and law. of course you need law, but these are other disciplines that aren't traditional taught in law school. i think it would be beneficial to have an eye dropper of their disciplines within the meal education, but i think the key, the future is the ability to communicate across those disciplines to effectively engage in teams of military disciplinary practice and come up with solutions that are really outside the domain of legal expertise that require legal expertise for them to ultimately serve the best interest of clients. so, that's a pretty tall order, but i see every time i log into

the clock list service, i see what is talked about there, i see the future coming across pretty clear what the professionals are talking about are definitely moving in this direction. so, i want to end up here with this idea of people and process and technology, it's going to be some variant of that, that we're going to need to incorporate into legal education. it's going to happen very slowly. much, much too slow for my satisfaction, but we're going to have to work backwards from the demands of the marketplace. so you guys are the folks, ultimately put pressure on the law schools to change what we teach and how we teach. i'll do one quick exercise and then we'll be done here. this is a famous study by schultz and zedick, and the people who make the lact. published in 2008. the data was gathered in the early 2000's and basically did

a study somewhat akin to judge corliss's did. the university of california berkley alumni base and 12 hours lawyers in the sample. after they delineated the effectiveness standards using gold standard methods then they came up with behaviorally anchored rating scales to judge the quality of the lawyers that-- how they performed on 26 different dimensions, so if i was in the sample. i would have a score from my supervisor, my peers, creativity innovation or my practical judgment and took that data and correlated back to the academic predictors, the lact and others prided on

admissions. so, i'll put this question to you and let me see if you can get some of the take away from the study. which attributes below are better predictor. lact, undergraduate and law school grades, emotional stability, self-control, consciousness and ambition. which was it, was it a or was it b? d? everyone says-- well, you've got it right here. so, let's go back, how does your law firm or how do your chambers hire? do you rely on b or rely on a? . you rely on b? i suspect that my experience has abouten, we rely quite a bit on a-- "a", and we know that b is how people flourish in practice. the bar, i'm happy to help on this one, we can think deeper

how the practice of of law is changing and the kind of professional skills that we need from entering associates, we could enter into a dialog and what's prize and how we can hire, we could break out of bad habits and change the kk-- curricula. i appreciate you time. [applause]. >> we've persuaded brian to be over comments and q & a and we'll be glad to respond to anything you've heard the three of us say. >> i don't see any raised hands. have we got any questions? we're going to try to walk a microphone around so people can hear the question. judge barker, you've got the floor. >> good morning.

>> good morning. this on? yeah, good. going back to your last slide, bill henderson, the a and the b, is that reflective of the criteria that the law schools use in choosing law students? >> oh, guilty as charged. [laughter] >> we would-- yeah, i say to myself that judge barker gets up and she's going to throw us a fastball. i was right about that. the law schools, we feel like we're locked into a kind of a positional competition to the u.s. news and world report. so we do look for lact and undergraduate credit depositions to admit on and that's how we award scholarship money. rit large, most of the accredited schools do that. maybe some of our

self-regulated organization can get together and figure out ways to break that log jam as clearly as all kind of deleterious consequences on society and i think we will learn-- we will come to regret where we're at, having been on the inside of law schools, not only my school, but talking to a lot of law schools, it's a serious issue to flout the conventions of u.s. news world report. the alumni applicants can easily be put into a tailspin if you drop 10 points in the rankings. i'm a believer to rangering management, i think that-- i know one school that actually focuses on employment outcomes and actually admits people with lower lsat's and lower gpa's

because they know they're more employable on the back end and they run the math. that's interest in where we're at here, i would love to break out of that. >> almost impossible for an individual school to do that because you get killed in the marketplace. >> it's going to be collected. >> in changing the discounting, for example, could be darn near fatal. and debra jones merit from the ohio state university school of law has done some important work trying to tease out some options that might exist for collaborative work and she's gained some attention rightly because of that. >> we had another question here in the middle. >> i know what an l-sat is and a gpa. i don't know the bch category, are you talking briggs meyers test, do any law firm do b-based hiring? >> i was part of applied

research company for six years and we helped law if irms utilize that. leapt me stay centered on the schultz zedeck study. they used a shah right of industry gold standards. they used hogan products, an assessment, hogan personality inventory and another developmental survey instrument and they're looking for kind of the positive attributes and the negative attributes for on the job performance. they're excellent-- they've been validated over a long period of time and in many different professional settings. larry richards is somebody that's in the law firm space, he's a psychologist that has a practice built up around the hogan products because they're excellent and he probably has tens of thousands of law firm partners, especially law firm

leaders that participated. there are folks out there that are using them and there's also other tests that were in the situational judgment, in the-- the biographical inventories which are kind of like a moneyball type instruments. all of these things protected better. in fact, some of the academic predictor were negley correlated. higher the lact's, or the lower your practical judgment. so there's a huge amount of effort that can be put in from a law firm to continue to think thoughtfully who is successful in the practice and why. you can't build self-reflection, unfortunately, and he think the legal practice dramatically underinvests in

thinking lawyer development, but tremendous research has been done out there and i'm happy to go off line and equate where to begin on that. the tests are used. >> talk a little about the role that the bar exam plays in this process, the correlation between bar exam passage and lsa and the extent we've built in our own piece of the puzzle that we may need to unravel. >> yeah, well, i'm not sure i exactly know where you want me to go on this, but i'll go with what i know. the lsat is a pretty good predicting of ultimate bar passage. sometimes six more effective is your law school grades. your law school grades should be a function of lsat, but when you use one versus the effect of others, your law school

grades are about six times more important in ultimate bar passage. so, independent of lsat, what would predict your law school grades? motivation, all the kind of character factors that judge corliss referred to. i always take attendance in my class and every year the same results, you come to fewer classes you get a lower grade and in some of those people, they have high lsat scores, so, the -- i guess -- well, i should ask the judge, is that the point you're trying to direct me towards? >> yeah, i just want to raise the question. it's easy to say that this is all u.s. news and world report's fault and that there's nothing that we can do about it, but in fact, there are things we can do.

we've talked about sort of collective action by law schools. we've talked about changes in hiring practices that they're therefore incentivized to produce different products on alternatively create different measures for students graduating and then there's the bar exam over which we have a significant amount of control and questions about whether we should be thinking about changes the bar exam, asking different things, directing different kinds of skillset development through the bar exam and is the issue that i was trying to put on the floor. >> in new hampshire they actually have a-- ran a pilot program. i won't get the name right, either by the franklin, the franklin pierce report? that basically allowed law

school graduates in new hampshire to completely opt out of the new hampshire bar if they took a series of courses that were simulation and built a property. and the take away is the young people who went through the program, we're demonstrably better on so many things. it goes to judge kourlis' point, the initial demand from the bar, if we could change that we could end up with people that are better prepared and effective. >> the early cadays of that option, a relatively small number of students chose to do it because they thought it would be harder than taking the test. and altering the final entry, if it were something valid ap reliable. i remember being in a drug court setting one day where a lawyer came in on behalf of his client and he says my client

says he doesn't want to do drug court, he'd rather go to prison. what he meant was drug court is pretty darn truck, it would be easier to spend two years in a jail somewhere than go to prison. the key is, a, can you measure and b, that holds people accountable and soeldz out people we shouldn't turn loose on clients, and the others to turn over important things to. >> other questions? judge. we've got a microphone right there. >> i'm going back to the slide and replacing people with technology-- there's a lot going on whether it it's-- [inaudible] i want to know why you're not

talking about shrinkage of capacity in law schools, fewer law schools, fewer lawyers over the long run because, you know, these jobs are not going to come back. the document reviewer jobs are not coming back and really probably shouldn't. >> should we repeat the question? >> so the question is why isn't talking about just shrinkage in the size of the legal profession, which at some point is going to mean we don't have 200 law schools, maybe 150 law schools and maybe watch that curve go down further. >> are we going do do it through a regulatory force or through the market. the market is going to be a long, slow painful process. or if we do it regular -- regulatoral process.

we're headed down the road. we have a lot less people making cars than we did 20 years. >> i was going to say it's not a problem unique to law school. the federal trade commission has done study and the word they sometimes use is rationalize in the face of demand. if you're the horse and buggy industry, demand is declining. there's a debate whether you should let the market did this, it will be painful along the way rather from the top down. >> i would add one other consideration and bill alluded to rebecca's work on the justice gap, the unmet legal need in the united states is be

bergening. yes, i think that part of it is downsizing of the profession, but i think there's a component here about them serving the people who need legal assistance and doing it in innovative ways that are affordable. unbundled legal services is an example. maybe we develop things like limited license legal technician options such as the state of washington and now utah. and maybe we become more involved in the kinds of on-line services that are being provided and playing a role and then gillian henderson-- >> hatfield. >> hatfield would take the position there is a unique role for lawyers in the kinds of systems being built through ai, autonomous cars, for example.

thinking how to build out the rules for what autonomous cars do or don't do. so i think there's a demand for legal services that is huge. it's a question of how we're going to that demand and whether we're actually coming up to the mark in changing the way that we think about the product of what a lawyer does and how that lawyer is trained. >> one of the things you can say the number of law schools are shrinking. i was surprised last week. i felt the time with them and matriculated numbers. this were some that matriculated as few as 60 or 70. the justice department says that any claim of shrinking the number of competitors is frowned upon to say the least. historically on most of the

graphs, the law schools sent money into the central administration budget at their universities and now it's quite common that money has to flow in the opposite direction. it's a very difficult time to be a law dean in an american law school and the number of people who find employment as legal teachers has been shrinking and the number, the amount of money that caused people like whittier, final will to say we change no longer to subsidize this afternoon. reportedly it went through to different departments. >> who is paying for this? the u.s. taxpayers a guaranteor on this one? i think it should affect the analysis somewhat. >> another question? >> i was wondering, professor henderson, if you could talk

more about-- oh, okay, there we go. >> if you could talk more about the studies trying to correlate young lawyers attributes, or certain success. how do the studies measure career success. i sum, if as you say, the highest paying jobs are using the wrong method, when they hire. if you measure lifetime career earnings between the lsat score and-- how are you defining success in those stories where you're kinding a stronger correlation with conscienceness and timeliness and those trouts? >> so, you have to back out from that analysis, the initial effect on lsat.

and your first job will affect the long time earnings. let's go back to the berkeley study and they took the effectiveness factors and through focus groups developed descriptions on the positive and negative side for what is seen through the eyes of others looked like or the ability to develop a business or integrity. what it looked like positively and negatively and then through a series of iterations were able to-- where they asked practitioners to place those on a continuum, now, to give them a pr previous score. the effectiveness were that the relating schools fand performance. so that's how the berkeley

study was conducted and they took those rating skills to supervisors and employers, and they got the scores and correlate with lsat and it was d deminimus. in my study when you look and see how lead schools do in terms of persistence to the partnership, they have over samples and the elite law graduates to persist until partnership. that's a low lower than regional graduates. probably that law firms so preference top ten or top 14 law schools, they look askance that the person doesn't have what it takes. and that's privilege and

credentials. to be an effective lawyer, it's just a much bigger tool set than academic ability. and though, the hiring bar and even the judiciary, quite frankly, overweights academics. you play it out over a lifetime, they matter, but nearly as much as uppiyou think. >> i is wanted to talk about law school cirricula. >> the thing about law review, you've got the top of the top of the class killing themselves after law school and found a skill, but they don't know how to write as lawyers. i wonder if the law school

looks at what makes them be a good writer and a good lawyer. >> go ahead, you can answer. >> so the answer is there are some pretty innovative things going on in law schools around the country directed toward trying to produce better writers and better thinkers. the problem from my perspective, the innovation tends to be concentrated in the qua quartiles around the country. they don't see the need. they're resting on their laurels, from our perspective there are innovative law schools, most are the ones struggling with their market share, which is not the right

message either. >> all right. i think we will leave it there. thanks to our panel very much for this morning's presentation. [applause]. we have a 15 minute break on the schedule. please come back in 15. i neglected to say to you there is a wi-fi available if you want it, the password is seven circuit. it should be on the slips on your table. >> c-span has been on the road. at laramie high school in wyoming, gathered with school officials to accept the first place prize for $3,000 for her documentary on wyoming's dependence on fossil fuels.

in golden, colorado, ethan accepted a second place prize $1500 for his documentary on cyber security. also in denver, the third place award of $750 went to 10th graders of mullen high school for the documentary about digital theft and hacking. st. thomas moore high school in rapid city, south dakota is where audrey, grace and carolyn won the third place prize of $750 for documentary on nashl inequality in america. how about five hours east in siouxes falls, a prize for his documentary on the national debt and the classmate honorable mention and $250 for his documentary on marijuana. at thomas edison middle school

a lot won 250 per group. sara for the national debt. joe and brady, and shaun for documentary on terrorism. he have and also receiving honorable missions for documentary on global warming. thank you to the students who took part in our student documentary competition. to watch any of the videos go to student cam.org. and student cam continues with confusion and you to have any provision much the constitution and a video why it's important. >> every week at the clinton white house, there was something-gate. it was a very tense environment. and then we had a special prosecutor, i don't know if you remember, a guy named ken starr.

he was like the bogeyman back then. it was like, a flyover class for this. i spent more time in that white house responding to foya requests and doing i go else. >> boy, i remember those going every day, every document trying to find a thing that ken starr wanted that week. so, you know, coming in now, i actually get to do my job. >> more to our interview, c-span radio and c-span.org. now we take you to atlanta for day two of the netroots nation annual conference where progressive have gathered to discuss policy. we'll hear how the democratic party tr