Re “The Price to Play Its Way” (Dec. 18), which described American Bar Association standards in the nation’s law schools:
The article rightly took aim at the prohibitive cost of law school for many people, and drew much-needed attention to the astonishingly minimal workloads of some law professors, who may still earn six-figure salaries.
Yet the article’s criticism of the accreditation system seems misguided. The legal profession already has more than its share of money-grubbing or sloppy and incompetent lawyers. Reopening the floodgates by slackening standards would only worsen the often poor quality of lawyers and legal services.
We might reasonably quibble about what the particular standards ought to be, but law is a profession for which high and rigorous standards are surely vital. David Tallman, J.D.
Atlanta, Dec. 18
To the Editor:
The article highlighted a problem with the current state of legal education in the United States, but was wrong in suggesting that an increase in low-cost legal training alternatives would improve the system.
However we got to this point, the bigger problem today is a vast oversupply of law graduates with poor or no job prospects. Granted, our society has unmet legal needs. But at a time when we have law school graduates working in low-paying jobs outside the profession, even while they have $200,000 balances on student loans, the answer is not to produce more lawyers.
A comparison of law schools with medical schools yields some stark contrasts. The number of law school programs and law students has skyrocketed over the past 20 years, in sharp contrast to the situation at medical schools. As a result, doctors are in short supply, while many law grads face bleak job prospects. If there were more medical schools and fewer law schools, the country would be better off.
Stanley M. Dub, Esq.
Shaker Heights, Ohio, Dec. 18
The writer is a lawyer in Cleveland.
Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=217ac1c907a539489972c56c678dc8d4