Yesterday’s New York Times published David Segal’s lastest criticism of law schools, this time focusing on the role of the ABA. An excerpt:
Anyone willing to invest $175,000 on a legal education, and hoping to earn a pile of money at a corporate firm, has plenty of options. But let’s say that your ambition is to make a modest living, perhaps in an area that is struggling. Or that you’d rather not enter your mid-20s lashed to a six-figure loan.
If you want a diploma blessed by the A.B.A. — and you don’t have rich parents, a plum scholarship or an in-state public law school with lots of taxpayer support — you are pretty much out of luck. . . .
To understand why Americans have one option for legal counsel, and why even start-up law schools are so expensive, you need to understand the various roles played by the A.B.A., say Ms. Hadfield and others.
With nearly 400,000 members and a staff of 939, the A.B.A. is the pre-eminent association of the profession. It also drafts and amends the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which have been adopted by every state except California. Then there is the A.B.A.’s gatekeeper role in law school education, through its Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar.
Detractors contend that these responsibilities allow the A.B.A. to behave like a guild — limiting competition and keeping the cost of legal education excessively high.