Law Schools and the Bar

Gerard Magliocca

Gerard N. Magliocca is the Samuel R. Rosen Professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Professor Magliocca is the author of three books and over twenty articles on constitutional law and intellectual property. He received his undergraduate degree from Stanford, his law degree from Yale, and joined the faculty after two years as an attorney at Covington and Burling and one year as a law clerk for Judge Guido Calabresi on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Professor Magliocca has received the Best New Professor Award and the Black Cane (Most Outstanding Professor) from the student body, and in 2008 held the Fulbright-Dow Distinguished Research Chair of the Roosevelt Study Center in Middelburg, The Netherlands. He was elected to the American Law Institute (ALI) in 2013.

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. Aaron says:

    “Expensive law schools mean that there will be fewer lawyers…”

    I disagree. A law degree appears to be an inelastic good. Tuition has substantially increased from 1985-2011, as has the average amount borrowed. See the ABA charts below.

    Reducing admission means that there will be fewer lawyers. However, a recent WSJ article reveals that only 5% of law schools are experimenting with reducing admission.

    Education is a business, and business is good.

  2. Gerard Magliocca says:

    I don’t agree that a law degree is generally inelastic (though I’m sure it is a place like Harvard). Deans at third-tier schools are not finding that to be true.

  3. A.J. Sutter says:

    You’re right. All practitioners act only in their own self-interest, and don’t give a rat’s tokhes about the future of the profession. Nearly 30 years since my J.D., I am absolutely TERRIFIED of a new crop of 1st-year lawyers hanging out their shingles.

  4. Doug Richmond says:

    The statement that “[e]xpensive law schools mean that there will be fewer lawyers” is simply wrong. Dramatic increases in law school tuitions in recent years have not slowed the production of new lawyers. How are law students hurt by reduced enrollment unless schools compensate for fewer fannies in seats by ratcheting up tuition to replace the asociated lost revenue? Fewer students should mean easier access to clinical programs and lower faculty-student ratios, which, in theory, should improve learning.