Legal Sector

Class of 2014 NALP Data: Unemployment, Small Firm Jobs Down

A few weeks back, the National Association for Law Placement (NALP) uploaded its national summary chart that’s the basis for its Employment Report and Salary Survey (ERSS). It’s here (pdf). Two things worth noting: One, this year’s version doesn’t include the total number of graduates or the number who responded to the survey, making it impossible to determine non-responses. I have no idea why the NALP did this.

Since the class of 2013 ERSS appeared to use the same total number of grads as the ABA did that year, I’ll assume it’s 43,832 this year, which includes graduates from the three Puerto Rico law schools. Also, this year the ERSS changed 2-10-lawyer firms to 1-10-lawyer firms. I’m not sure if this is a typo or if it’s meant to separate graduates who work under solo practitioners as non-lawyers from graduates who start their own solo practices.

Okay, some analysis. Obviously this year’s ERSS confirms what’s been widely reported since the ABA’s version of the same data came out several months ago: Unemployment is down, as is the number of grads in bar-passage-required jobs, and with fewer graduates, the percentage of employed grads rose.

Here are charts of the number of graduates by employment status and the percent employed. (These exclude non-responses.)

No. Grads Employed by Status (NALP)

Percent Employed by Status (NALP)

These charts also illustrate the remarkable growth in J.D. advantage jobs over the years.

Here’s a detailed version graduate employment but with full-time and part-time status and only going back to 2007.

No. Grads Employed by Status (Incl. FT-PT) (NALP)

The question that I don’t think has been addressed is what kind of bar-passage-required jobs are responsible for the drop in that category. I won’t show all the math, but the answer is overwhelmingly private-practice, small-law firm jobs: 1/2-10-lawyer practices and solos.

No. Graduates Employed by Size of Firm (NALP)

Interestingly, the number and proportion of grads reported as starting their own practices did not change much since 2013 (-175 from 1,378). I draw two conclusions from this: One, small firms looking for new lawyers will need to look harder. I have no idea if that will push up wages in the future (there’s trivial evidence it has this year for full-time, wage-and-salary jobs). On the other hand, these could be eat-what-you-kill arrangements, which wouldn’t cost these firms much. Nominal wages for 1/2-10-lawyer practices are still way down from 2007, but the proportion of grads reporting wages is up, so this is a phenomenon to look for. The better these jobs pay, the better grads do overall: It’s the marginal graduate who matters most.

Speaking of whom, and this is my second thought, grads appear to prefer J.D.-advantage jobs and unemployment to small firm work. Given the definition of J.D. advantage, which is so broad that it likely includes graduates returning to their prior jobs, graduates’ employment “choices” don’t speak highly of small-firm work.

Thus, there is still much slack in the legal labor market, but it is improving. Big law isn’t hiring the way it used to, but fewer grads are working in smaller practices:


Cumulative Percent Change in Grads Employed in Law Firm Jobs by Firm Size (Index 2007=100) (NALP)

(Sorry this one is a little unclear.)

To conclude, this ERSS verifies the odd accounting identity explaining law graduate employment: The first people who don’t go to law school are the first ones to not be underemployed after graduating. Small beans for the thousands of unemployed grads though.

Steel Links

Haven’t done a links post in a while, but there are a few things worth writing about in brief.

Allison Schrager, “Becoming a Doctor or Lawyer Is Still Worth It,” Quartz, July 14, 2015.

Of course, that doesn’t mean going to law school is still worth it because, of course, the article carefully points out that not all law school graduates work in high-paying professional jobs and lawyers have a notably high attrition rate.

Wait, it didn’t point that out? Oops. Then maybe we shouldn’t be saying that the return to law school is so high. (I should add that the underlying paper at least discusses this.)

Molly Hensley-Clancy, “LegalZoom Wants to Be ‘The Good Guys’ in the Shady World of Student Debt Relief,” BuzzFeed, July 6, 2015.

Fun fact: BuzzFeed does investigative reporting. I’m happy to serve it a compliment. What it found is that everyone’s favorite legal disruptive innovator is making money by … charging federal student loan debtors $700 to sign them on to income-sensitive repayment plans. Which they can do for free on their own. LegalZoom swears it’s informing borrowers of that fact, but that’s not what happened when BuzzFeed‘s reporter called in posing as a debtor. (Yes, really. This is what journalists are supposed to do.)

Did I mention that a couple weeks ago New York’s Student Protection Unit shut down a financial services company for charging student debtors money for signing them onto IBR plans without telling them they could do so for free? Did I also mention it paid a $10,000 fine? Does anyone call these companies legal disruptive innovators?

Now, to editorialize: If you couldn’t tell, I think LegalZoom’s impact is hyped, UPL or not. It’s quite possible that it makes money by (a) offering services lawyers wouldn’t charge for, as in the above case, or (b) serving clients for legal issues they might not bother going to a lawyer for anyway, e.g. a no-income, no-asset, few creditors, chapter 7 bankruptcy filing. Neither of these activities takes business from traditional lawyers.

In fact, in 2014 30 percent of LegalZoom’s revenue came from subscription fees, meaning it wasn’t selling actual legal services. Also, one of its biggest sources of revenue appears to be incorporation documents for California businesses. Perhaps it offers needed services, but consumer regulators need to catch up with it.

Gainful Employment Rule Post

Yeah, this link is for me. Because readers forwarded around my post applying the Gainful Employment rule to all law schools, I went back and updated it so that the table showed only the results from the total income test. I figure in case researchers want to cite it or replicate my results, they’ll have an easier time understanding what I was doing. I realized that the results of both tests produce the equivalent number, so even if a law schools’ graduates’ discretionary incomes are lower, the table now shows the equivalent income graduates would need to be making. I didn’t update the post’s text, so bear that in mind.

Expert Institute’s Best Legal Blog Contest

A generous reader has nominated the LSTB for the Expert Institute’s Best Legal Blog Contest. You can read about it here. As ever, I am grateful to you, my readers, for your support.


The ABA released the class of 2014’s employment information last week, and there are enough differences to warrant an update to this post, namely that I’d forgotten that the ABA accredited Lincoln Memorial University late last fall. Most of the figures remain the same, but to keep Web traffic to one post, I’m retaining the original “leaked” version at the bottom but striking it out. I’ve also changed the title.

We have 43,195 people who graduated from an ABA-accredited law school outside of Puerto Rico between September 1, 2013, and August 31, 2014. The employment information is good as of March 15, 2015. Readers likely know that the ABA now collects data as of ten months from the typical graduation date rather than nine. I don’t think there’s too much of an impact by the change except to applicants this year who might have wanted to rely on the data.

The tables are below the fold to conserve blog space.


Lawyer Employment Grows in 2014, Wages Flat

…Which is unsurprising.

Last week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) updated its Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) program data for 2014, and since the topic of what the BLS programs are actually measuring came up in the context of the latest analysis on the alleged J.D. premium, now is a good time to report on the data. Here is what lawyer employment looks like over time based on various BLS measures.

Lawyer Employment by BLS Measure

Aside from some growth in 2014, of interest is the discrepancy between the Current Population Survey’s (CPS’s) and the Employment Projection program’s (EP program’s) lawyer estimates. It’s been there for a while. Technically, the CPS is considered more reliable, but when discussing lawyer projections, the EP program’s numbers are appropriate. The CPS measures people in an occupation, not the number of job positions, which can be held by multiple persons. I think the CPS overstates the number of employed lawyers. Both measures include part-time lawyers and self-employed lawyers in all industries.

The CPS’s full-time wage and salary lawyer measure is similar to the OES program’s measure as they both exclude self-employed attorneys, but the OES program includes part-time workers. Finally, the number of legal sector attorneys is the subset of the OES lawyers working in the legal sector, and according to the link above, 71 percent of all lawyer positions are in the legal sector.

As for lawyers’ wages, they’re largely flat, but the median has fallen since 2009.

W&S Lawyer & Paralegal Hourly Wages (Constant $)

It’s useful to compare lawyers’ wages to paralegals’. This year, the top 10 percent of paralegals earned more than the bottom 25 percent of wage and salaried lawyers, but some of that is probably a comparison between full-time and part-time workers.

Detailed information on what the BLS programs measure can be found on the lawyer overproduction page, which I strongly recommend for anyone who is unfamiliar on the materials (*cough* law profs *cough*–Sorry, allergies). Although, it has not been updated regarding the BLS’s proposal to alter the replacement estimate used in the lawyer projections. That will come later. Lawyer employment in and of itself is not a bellwether for the future of the legal profession; it’s just worth tracking. Aside from the lawyer overproduction page, readers are advised to look at my criteria for predicting improvements in law graduate outcomes.

That’s all for now. Peace.

71 Percent of Lawyers Work in the Legal Services Sector

71 percent of employed lawyers, that is. We’re not talking about people who are on the rolls but aren’t working.

I haven’t carefully read through all of Michael Simkovic’s and Frank McIntyre’s most recent analysis in law graduate earnings, but it looks like they’re still uninterested in exploring the possibility that law grads’ earnings are attributable to demand-side factors, like price or income elasticity of demand for lawyers’ services. Because they don’t show us that law students who complete all the required law school course work without graduating have the same earnings as law graduates, anything they say about a JD premium is premature. Such an analysis is crucial because one of their own citations, David Card’s 1999, “The Causal Effect of Education on Earnings,” indicates that law grads earn substantially more than the trend would suggest. This finding screams for testing, but Simkovic and McIntyre aren’t careful enough researchers to do that.

Thus, it follows that their comparisons between law grads and college grads in “Timing Law School” are equally inadmissible. Indeed, I may not bother commenting on “Timing” at length at all.

However, I did decide that a little procrastination is good for the human spirit (and entertaining to the reader), so I poked around “Timing” to see what errors I could find. I’ll showcase one.

On page 17 Simkovic and McIntyre write:

Based on initial outcomes for recent graduates and qualitative factors, Henderson and Zahorsky argue that the legal profession is experiencing a “structural shift” due to globalization and technological change.34 Others point to a decline in the size of “legal services” (law firms) relative to GDP.35 What this means for law school graduates is uncertain, since most legal services workers are not lawyers,36 and many law graduates work in fields other than legal services.37

Footnote 36 uses the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) database to show that “out of more than 1.1 million legal services workers, only 375 thousand were lawyers. Other occupations include paralegals, secretaries, bookkeepers and computer support and business specialists.”

And footnote 37 says:

Around 60 percent of law graduates practice law. Simkovic and McIntyre, supra [“Economic Value of a Law Degree”] at 252. Of those working as lawyers, around 65 percent work in “legal services.” United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, supra note 36. Some of the non-lawyers working in legal services have law degrees.

In other words, the authors bury in a footnote the fact that 65 percent of lawyers work in legal services, so they can claim that it’s unclear how economic swings affecting the legal services sector would in turn affect law grads because most workers there aren’t lawyers. Being mindful of the distinction between law grads and lawyers, it’s nevertheless pretty bizarre to believe that the one industry law school prepares people for most would have a trivial impact on their earnings. The only alternative interpretation is for Simkovic and McIntyre to show that the legal sector is laying off everyone but its lawyers—and admittedly (again, in a footnote) malemployed law grads.

The foregoing aside, their math is still incorrect. It’s true that 375,000 legal sector lawyers out of the 592,670 total in the OES equals 63 percent, but that’s not the full number of lawyers. Why? Because the OES omits self-employed workers, which feature prominently in the legal profession. This is an pitfall that I either first noticed or was pointed out to me when I started writing on law schools nearly five years ago, so it’s amusing to see Simkovic and McIntyre make it.

In 2012, the BLS’s Employment Projections program found 759,800 employed lawyers, of which 374,900 were legal sector wage-and-salary employees. According to the BLS’s estimate of the distribution of lawyers among industries (xls), 165,700 lawyers were self-employed workers. It’s just about impossible for these folks to not be working in the legal sector, and indeed, if one looks at the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ National Income and Product Accounts tables, one finds that self-employed workers are included in the category “Persons Engaged in Production by Industry” (Table 6.8D).

As a result, 540,600 lawyers out of 759,800 lawyers—71 percent—work in the legal services sector, not 63 percent. These scant 8 percentage points sure make it look more persuasive to me that what goes on in the legal sector influences law grads’ earnings. (Oh, and I add that another 17 percent of all lawyers work in government. Is that sector robustly hiring lawyers?)

I don’t expect those 8 percentage points to persuade Simkovic and McIntyre, though. They’ve gotten plenty of mileage asking the legal profession to accept on an untested, pure human capital hypothesis that law school pays off even if the legal sector implodes. They can at least include self-employed lawyers in their adverse footnotes.

Site Update 2015-02-09: Law Graduate Overproduction Page

The update can be found here. (The 2011 edition has been moved here.)

To keep the analysis consistent with previous years, I used the class of 2013 even though data for the class on 2014 are available (and logged by moi). It’s a little problematic given that 2013 was the law graduate high tide, but that’s what happens when law schools enroll people without regard to employment outcomes.

I do not discussed the BLS’s proposed changes to its methodology for measuring occupational replacements. Assuming it’s approved, then for future versions, if the BLS separates annual replacement openings between those created by workers who leave the labor force and workers who move to different occupations, then I’ll use the labor force rate as the measure for “sustainable jobs.” It’s imperfect, but the same can be said of the current methodology.

I’ve also updated the site’s highly popular lawyers per capita by state page to include employed lawyers per capita and idle attorneys using the 2012 employment data. I am waiting on the ABA to update its national lawyer counts for 2014 and 2015. (They do plan on doing that right?)

At this time, I will brag that the Census Bureau’s press relations department cited my work on this topic last August.

BLS: One in Four Lawyers to Switch Occupations by 2022

…And if you know what that means, great, because there’re plenty of caveats I have to lay out for everyone else.

Steven Harper inspires me to check up on how things are going with the BLS’s proposed rule-change for estimating occupational replacement rates; there was an update on January 2nd. Apparently, the Employment Projections program released a spreadsheet with experimental 2012-2022 replacement and separations data alongside the numbers from the current methodology. I don’t think it was there before, but the BLS says it was. If so I wish I’d noticed it earlier as it’s quite interesting.

For one, my hunch in my American Lawyer article was correct: Under the new methodology between 2012 and 2022, 339,800 out of 759,800 lawyers would be replaced, and the growth rate, which is what we should be caring about because it’s not zero sum, doesn’t get changed. I like getting the numbers right. (Okay, I was off by a thousand.)

For another, the BLS goes further than I expected by separating the total occupational replacement rate into “labor force exits” and “occupational transfers,” which mean as they sound. Labor force exits are certainly going to include most retirements but also people exiting for parental leave and other, less common personal reasons. The labor force exit rate for lawyers is 17.1 percent, which compares strikingly well with the current methodology’s 16 percent replacement rate.

As for occupational transfers, as this post’s title states, it’s 25.5 percent. That’s the concept I’ve been most concerned about all along. These are lawyers who are leaving the profession for different types of jobs. To be clear, some of these transfers are preferable and some not. It includes lawyers who become judges with lawyers who become retail sales clerks. The interesting comparison—and the best I can give you—is with other occupations that require doctoral or professional degrees, sorted by size and occupational transfer rate.

Animal scientists 19-1011 33.3% 54.3% 22.2% 76.4%
Biochemists and biophysicists 19-1021 28.5% 54.1% 18.0% 72.1%
Medical scientists, except epidemiologists 19-1042 21.1% 51.3% 14.5% 65.9%
Computer and information research scientists 15-1111 15.7% 44.9% 11.2% 56.1%
Clinical, counseling, and school psychologists 19-3031 27.2% 42.1% 24.1% 66.3%
Physicists 19-2012 24.5% 38.8% 19.1% 57.9%
Astronomers 19-2011 24.5% 38.8% 19.1% 57.9%
Judicial law clerks 23-1012 16.2% 35.4% 27.5% 62.9%
Postsecondary teachers, all other 25-1199 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Health specialties teachers, postsecondary 25-1071 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Business teachers, postsecondary 25-1011 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
English language and literature teachers, postsecondary 25-1123 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Education teachers, postsecondary 25-1081 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Biological science teachers, postsecondary 25-1042 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Mathematical science teachers, postsecondary 25-1022 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Psychology teachers, postsecondary 25-1066 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Engineering teachers, postsecondary 25-1032 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Computer science teachers, postsecondary 25-1021 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Communications teachers, postsecondary 25-1122 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Foreign language and literature teachers, postsecondary 25-1124 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Philosophy and religion teachers, postsecondary 25-1126 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
History teachers, postsecondary 25-1125 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Chemistry teachers, postsecondary 25-1052 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Recreation and fitness studies teachers, postsecondary 25-1193 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Political science teachers, postsecondary 25-1065 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Sociology teachers, postsecondary 25-1067 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Law teachers, postsecondary 25-1112 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Physics teachers, postsecondary 25-1054 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Economics teachers, postsecondary 25-1063 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Criminal justice and law enforcement teachers, postsecondary 25-1111 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Atmospheric, earth, marine, and space sciences teachers, postsecondary 25-1051 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Agricultural sciences teachers, postsecondary 25-1041 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Area, ethnic, and cultural studies teachers, postsecondary 25-1062 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Social sciences teachers, postsecondary, all other 25-1069 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Social work teachers, postsecondary 25-1113 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Architecture teachers, postsecondary 25-1031 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Anthropology and archeology teachers, postsecondary 25-1061 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Environmental science teachers, postsecondary 25-1053 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Geography teachers, postsecondary 25-1064 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Library science teachers, postsecondary 25-1082 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Forestry and conservation science teachers, postsecondary 25-1043 15.0% 34.1% 32.9% 67.0%
Lawyers 23-1011 16.0% 25.5% 17.1% 42.6%
Judges, magistrate judges, and magistrates 23-1023 16.0% 25.5% 17.1% 42.6%
Administrative law judges, adjudicators, and hearing officers 23-1021 16.0% 25.5% 17.1% 42.6%
Physical therapists 29-1123 24.6% 23.6% 15.2% 38.8%
Pharmacists 29-1051 23.9% 20.5% 16.8% 37.4%
Audiologists 29-1181 20.7% 20.0% 14.5% 34.5%
Veterinarians 29-1131 32.1% 16.6% 14.5% 31.1%
Physicians and surgeons, all other 29-1069 25.0% 14.4% 14.6% 29.0%
Family and general practitioners 29-1062 25.0% 14.4% 14.6% 29.0%
Internists, general 29-1063 25.0% 14.4% 14.6% 29.0%
Surgeons 29-1067 25.0% 14.4% 14.6% 29.0%
Anesthesiologists 29-1061 25.0% 14.4% 14.6% 29.0%
Pediatricians, general 29-1065 25.0% 14.4% 14.6% 29.0%
Psychiatrists 29-1066 25.0% 14.4% 14.6% 29.0%
Obstetricians and gynecologists 29-1064 25.0% 14.4% 14.6% 29.0%
Optometrists 29-1041 29.0% 14.0% 19.6% 33.6%
Chiropractors 29-1011 19.6% 13.6% 13.1% 26.8%
Dentists, general 29-1021 24.4% 12.7% 15.6% 28.3%
Orthodontists 29-1023 24.4% 12.7% 15.6% 28.3%
Oral and maxillofacial surgeons 29-1022 24.4% 12.7% 15.6% 28.3%
Dentists, all other specialists 29-1029 24.4% 12.7% 15.6% 28.3%
Prosthodontists 29-1024 24.4% 12.7% 15.6% 28.3%
Podiatrists 29-1081 20.7% 12.1% 11.1% 23.3%

I didn’t include it, but some of the occupations at the top with high turnover are quite tiny. There are only 2,700 animal scientists, for example, so my guess is there are still problems with the data. You’ll also note that many of the stats tend to clump together by occupation types, e.g. the 33 postsecondary instructor classes, which all have the same replacement rates, for both the new and old methodologies.

But the real money is in comparisons among the professional occupations, which are generally doctors, dentists, and lawyers. Lawyers’ occupational transfer rate is double doctors’ and dentists’. The medical occupations’ replacement rates under the current methodology are only a few percentage points lower than the total occupational separation rate under the new one, but the same can’t be said for attorneys’.

I’m not sure how reliable these experimental data are, but they do tend to show that there’s more turnover for lawyers than the other professions they’re most often compared to. (Ironically there’s even more turnover for postsecondary law instructors.) And I’m not even getting into job quality. I wouldn’t say this is especially strong evidence of a high turnover rate for lawyers, but it’s another piece that fits in that puzzle.

The BLS (still) says it’ll give us another update early this year, but I hope to write on other topics.