Sunday, March 2, 2014

January 2014

You can tell I take this blog seriously when I forget that I hadn't posted January. Fixed.

During its relatively brief existence, the world has passed it by. As Nando reports, anti-law school sentiment is now mainstream. Want to know what otherworldly, self-serving tripe your favorite law school dean is dishing out? Read CNN. Nice photo of the JMLS building in the article, BTW. I can only imagine how many lemmings have stood on the Chicago 'L' platform by the school, seen the sign, and thrown their life away.

Back to the matter at hand. Year-over-year industry growth was about 7,000 positions. In another impressive statistic, JMLS accepted 64% of applicants for the class of 2017. It's hard to consider law a profession when the criterion for a legal education is being able to fog a mirror.

Not seasonally adjustedJanuary20131,122,800
Seasonally adjustedJanuary20131,130,200
Change from Dec-13 to


  1. Hell, prostitutes have a higher rejection rate than John Mar$hall Law Sewer.

  2. Correct me if I'm wrong but the growth was a scant 2,000 from 2013 to 2014. That's pathetic. "Legal services" of course is not limited to lawyers. It includes paralegals, legal assistants, law librarians, law fluffers, etc. So anemic. So weak. This profession is such a joke.

    What a great idea: spend $200,000 for less than a coin flip's chance at earning a salary on par with a BA holder. Who in the hell is still going to law school? You'd have to be rich, connected, or a moron and there aren't that many rich or connect people in America.

    1. I usually look at one-year and three-year change. BLS did report growth of 2,000 from December to January, but it routinely makes wholesale revision of its numbers in later months. The short story, which I've hammered on since Day 1, is there is inadequate growth to absorb more than a fraction of law graduates.

      The longer story, which is based more on anecdote than BLS data, is which individuals are being hired? My assumption was that lawyers would assume tasks previously done by paralegals and secretaries because they cost the same (or less) and can do more. This is flat wrong, as I discovered. See