El Blog de noticias sobre Derecho Anglo-Americano

El Gertrude Ryan Law Observatory ha creado un espacio dedicado al análisis y comentario de
temas de actualidad en el mundo jurídico de los Estados Unidos, orientado a promover y
fomentar la universalización del Derecho en todas sus áreas


jueves, 27 de septiembre de 2007

The Wall Street Journal: Sobreoferta de profesionales de Derecho en Estados Unidos


Hard Case: Job Market Wanes for U.S. Lawyers
Growth of Legal SectorLags Broader Economy;Law Schools Proliferate
By AMIR EFRATISeptember 24, 2007; Page A1



A law degree isn't necessarily a license to print money these days.

For graduates of elite law schools, prospects have never been better. Big law firms this year boosted their starting salaries to as high as $160,000. But the majority of law-school graduates are suffering from a supply-and-demand imbalance that's suppressing pay and job growth. The result: Graduates who don't score at the top of their class are struggling to find well-paying jobs to make payments on law-school debts that can exceed $100,000. Some are taking temporary contract work, reviewing documents for as little as $20 an hour, without benefits. And many are blaming their law schools for failing to warn them about the dark side of the job market.


The law degree that Scott Bullock gained in 2005 from Seton Hall University -- where he says he ranked in the top third of his class -- is a "waste," he says. Some former high-school friends are earning considerably more as plumbers and electricians than the $50,000-a-year Mr. Bullock is making as a personal-injury attorney in Manhattan. To boot, he is paying off $118,000 in law-school debt.

"Unfortunately, some find the practice of law is not for them," Seton Hall's associate dean, Kathleen Boozang, said through a spokeswoman. "However, it is our experience that a legal education is a tremendous asset for a variety of professional paths."
A slack in demand appears to be part of the problem. The legal sector, after more than tripling in inflation-adjusted growth between 1970 and 1987, has grown at an average annual inflation-adjusted rate of 1.2% since 1988, or less than half as fast as the broader economy, according to Commerce Department data.

Some practice areas have declined in recent years: Personal-injury and medical-malpractice cases have been undercut by state laws limiting class-action suits, out-of-state plaintiffs and payouts on damages. Securities class-action litigation has declined in part because of a buoyant stock market.


On the supply end, more lawyers are entering the work force, thanks in part to the accreditation of new law schools and an influx of applicants after the dot-com implosion earlier this decade. In the 2005-06 academic year, 43,883 Juris Doctor degrees were awarded, up from 37,909 for 2001-02, according to the American Bar Association. Universities are starting up more law schools in part for prestige but also because they are money makers. Costs are low compared with other graduate schools and classrooms can be large. Since 1995, the number of ABA-accredited schools increased by 11%, to 196.


Evidence of a squeezed market among the majority of private lawyers in the U.S., who work as sole practitioners or at small firms, is growing. A survey of about 650 Chicago lawyers published in the 2005 book "Urban Lawyers" found that between 1975 and 1995 the inflation-adjusted average income of the top 25% of earners, generally big-firm lawyers, grew by 22% -- while income for the other 75% actually dropped.


According to the Internal Revenue Service, the inflation-adjusted average income of sole practitioners has been flat since the mid-1980s. A recent survey showed that out of nearly 600 lawyers at firms of 10 lawyers or fewer in Indiana, wages for the majority only kept pace with inflation or dropped in real terms over the past five years.

The news isn't any better for the 14% of new lawyers who go into government or join public-interest firms. Inflation-adjusted starting salaries for graduates who go to work for public-interest firms or the government rose 4% and 8.6%, respectively, between 1994 and 2006, according to the National Association for Law Placement, which aggregates graduate surveys from law schools. That compares with at least an 11% jump in the median family income during the same period, according to the Census Bureau. Graduates who become in-house company lawyers, about 9%, have fared better: Their salaries rose by nearly 14% during the same period.
Many students "simply cannot earn enough income after graduation to support the debt they incur," wrote Richard Matasar, dean of New York Law School, in 2005, concluding that, "We may be reaching the end of a golden era for law schools."

Meanwhile, the prospects for big-firm lawyers are growing richer. While offering robust minimum salaries, those firms are paying astronomical amounts to their stars.

Now, debate is intensifying among law-school academics over the integrity of law schools' marketing campaigns. Defenders argue that the legal profession always has been openly and proudly a meritocracy: Top entrance-exam scores help win admittance to top schools where top students win jobs at top firms. Even the system that is used to issue law-school grades -- a curve that pits student against student -- reflects the law profession's competitiveness.

David Burcham, dean of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, considered second-tier, says the school makes no guarantees to students that they will obtain jobs. He says it is problematic that big firms only interview the top of the class, "but that's the nature of the employment market; it's never been different."

For the majority of students and alumni, he says, Loyola "turned out to be a good investment."
Yet economic data suggest that prospects have grown bleaker for all but the top students, and now a number of law-school professors are calling for the distribution of more-accurate employment information. Incoming students are "mesmerized by what's happening in big firms, but clueless about what's going on in the bottom half of the profession," says Richard Sander, a law professor at the University of California-Los Angeles who has studied the legal job market.
"Prospective students need solid comparative data on employment outcomes, [but] very few law schools provide such data," adds Andrew Morriss, a law professor at the University of Illinois who has studied the market for new lawyers.

Students entering law school have little way of knowing how tight a job market they might face. The only employment data that many prospective students see comes from school-promoted surveys that provide a far-from-complete portrait of graduate experiences. Tulane University, for example, reports to U.S. News & World Report magazine, which publishes widely watched annual law-school rankings, that its law-school graduates entering the job market in 2005 had a median salary of $135,000. But that is based on a survey that only 24% of that year's graduates completed, and those who did so likely represent the cream of the class, a Tulane official concedes.

On its Web site, the school currently reports an average starting salary of $96,356 for graduates in private practice but doesn't include what percentage of graduates reported salaries for the survey.

"It's within most individuals' nature to keep that information private, unless it's a high amount," says Carlos Dávila-Caballero, assistant dean for career development at Tulane, who adds that his office tells prospective students to use the median figure as a guide because starting salaries vary widely.

Academics who have studied new-lawyer salaries say that the graduate surveys of many law schools are skewed by higher response rates from the most successful students. The National Association for Law Placement, which aggregates and publishes national data based on those surveys, concedes that it can't vouch for their accuracy. "We can't validate the figures; we have to rely on schools to report to us accurately," says Judy Collins, NALP's director of research.
A prospective student studying NALP data might conclude that the study of law is a sure path to financial security. For 2006 graduates who entered private practice, or nearly 60%, NALP shows a national median salary of $95,000, a rise of 40%, adjusted for inflation, from 1994 graduates.

The NALP data also show that the percentage of graduates employed in private practice has been steady, fluctuating between 55% and 58% for more than a decade. But in law schools' self-published employment data, "private practice" doesn't necessarily mean jobs that improve long-term career prospects, for that category can include lawyers working under contract without benefits, such as Israel Meth. A 2005 graduate of Brooklyn Law School, he earns about $30 an hour as a contract attorney reviewing legal documents for big firms. He says he uses 60% of his paycheck to pay off student loans -- $100,000 for law school on top of $100,000 for the bachelor's degree he received from Columbia University.

A glossy admissions brochure for Brooklyn Law School, considered second-tier, reports a median salary for recent graduates at law firms of well above $100,000. But that figure doesn't reflect all incomes of graduates at firms; fewer than half of graduates at firms responded to the survey, the school reported to U.S. News. On its Web site, the school reports that 41% of last year's graduates work for firms of more than 100 lawyers, but it fails to mention that that percentage includes temporary attorneys, often working for hourly wages without benefits, Joan King, director of the school's career center, concedes.

Ms. King says she believes the figures for her school accurately represent the broader graduating class. She says the number of contract attorneys is "minimal" but declined to give a number.

The University of Richmond School of Law in the last couple of years started to be more open about its employment statistics; it now breaks out how many of its grads work as contract attorneys. Of 57 2006 graduates working in private practice, for example, seven were contract employees nine months after graduation. Schools "should be sharing more information than they are now," says Joshua Burstein, associate dean for career services who put the changes in place. "Most people graduating from law school," he says, "are not going to be earning big salaries."

Adding to the burden for young lawyers: Tuition growth at law schools has almost tripled the rate of inflation over the past 20 years, leading to higher debt for students and making starting salaries for most graduates less manageable, especially in expensive cities. Graduates in 2006 of public and private law schools had borrowed an average of $54,509 and $83,181, up 17% and 18.6%, respectively, from the amount borrowed by 2002 graduates, according to the American Bar Association.


Students taking on such debt may feel reassured by incessant press reports of big firms scrambling to hire and keep associates. Making headlines this year was a bump up in big-firm starting salaries to $160,000 from $145,000 in many cities.

And indeed, some law graduates of lower-tier schools do find high-paying private-practice law jobs. In recent years big firms have boomed thanks in part to the globalization of business and Wall Street deal making; firms have been casting a wider net for new lawyers, though they still generally restrict their recruiting at lower-tier schools to students at the very top of the class or on the law review. Some students have leads on a job at a family member's or friend's practice.
But just as common -- and much less publicized -- are experiences such as that of Sue Clark, who this year received her degree from second-tier Chicago-Kent College of Law, one of six law schools in the Chicago area. Despite graduating near the top half of her class, she has been unable to find a job and is doing temp work "essentially as a paralegal," she says. "A lot of people, including myself, feel frustrated about the lack of jobs," she says.

Harold Krent, Chicago-Kent's dean, said it's not uncommon for new lawyers to wait a few months to more than a year to find a job that's a good fit. He added that there is a "small spike" in employment after his school's grads receive their bar-exam results, several months after graduation, because some firms wait until then before hiring.

The market is particularly tough in big cities that boast numerous law schools. Mike Altmann, 29, a graduate of New York University who went to Brooklyn Law School, says he accumulated $130,000 in student-loan debt and graduated in 2002 with no meaningful employment opportunities -- one offer was a $33,000 job with no benefits. So Mr. Altmann became a contract attorney, reviewing electronic documents for big firms for around $20 to $30 an hour, and hasn't been able to find higher-paying work since.

Some un- or underemployed grads are seeking consolation online, where blogs and discussion boards have created venues for shared commiseration that didn't exist before. An anonymous writer called Loyola 2L, purportedly a student at Loyola Law School, who claims the school wasn't straight about employment prospects, has been beating a drum of discontent around the Web in the past year that's sparked thousands of responses, and a fan base. ("2L" stands for second-year law student.) Some thank "L2L" for articulating their plight; others claim L2L should complain less and work more. Loyola's Dean Burcham says he wishes he knew who the student was so he could help the person. "It's expensive to go to law school, and there are times when you second-guess yourself as a student," he says.

Some new lawyers try to hang their own shingle. Matthew Fox Curl graduated in 2004 from second-tier University of Houston in the bottom quarter of his class. After months of job hunting, he took his first job working for a sole practitioner focused on personal injury in the Houston area and made $32,000 in his first year. He quickly found that tort-reform legislation has been "brutal" to Texas plaintiffs' lawyers and last year left the firm to open up his own criminal-defense private practice.

He's making less money than at his last job and has thought about moving back to his parents' house. "I didn't think three years out I'd be uninsured, thinking it's a great day when a crackhead brings me $500."


--Mark Whitehouse contributed to this article.
Write to Amir Efrati at amir.efrati@wsj.com



Artículo del The Wall Street Journal

Grabación de la audiencia oral del caso: Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1

Oyez.org pone a disponibilidad del público la grabación del alegato oral del polémico caso Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1. En dicho proceso los magistrados del Tribunal Supremo declararon inválida la política de integración racial adoptada por centros educativos de Seattle y Louisville.

La grabación se encuentra disponible en:

The New York Times: Juez americano declara inconstitucionales ciertas disposiciones de la Patriot Act

Judge Rules Provisions in Patriot Act to Be Illegal

By SUSAN JO KELLER
Published: September 27, 2007
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — A federal judge in Oregon ruled Wednesday that crucial parts of the USA Patriot Act were not constitutional because they allowed federal surveillance and searches of Americans without demonstrating probable cause.

The ruling by Judge Anne L. Aiken of Federal District Court in Portland was in the case of Brandon Mayfield, a lawyer in Portland who was arrested and jailed after the Federal Bureau of Investigation mistakenly linked him to the Madrid train bombings in March 2004.

“For over 200 years, this nation has adhered to the rule of law — with unparalleled success,” Judge Aiken’s opinion said in finding violations of the Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure. “A shift to a nation based on extraconstitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill advised.”

The ruling is a new chapter in a legal battle that began after the Spanish police found a plastic bag with detonator caps in a van near the bombings, which killed 191 people and left 2,000 injured in the deadliest terrorist attack in Europe since World War II.

Initially, the F.B.I. found no match for the fingerprints. But after reviewing a digitally enhanced set of the prints, the agency identified 20 possible matches, including Mr. Mayfield.

Though Spanish officials had doubts about the match, federal agents began surveillance on him and his family, using expanded powers under the Patriot Act. Mr. Mayfield was jailed for two weeks before a federal judge threw out the case.

Mr. Mayfield, 38, who was born in Oregon and brought up in a small town in Kansas, converted to Islam in 1989. He was a lawyer in a child custody case for Jeffrey Leon Battle, who had been convicted of conspiring to aid the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Mr. Mayfield said his religion and legal work had led investigators to be overzealous in connecting him to the Madrid plot.

Mr. Mayfield sued the government, which apologized and agreed to a $2 million settlement last November. The settlement included an unusual condition that freed the government from future liability with one exception. Mr. Mayfield was allowed to continue a suit seeking to overturn parts of the Patriot Act.

It was that suit on which Judge Aiken ruled Wednesday. Her opinion said the court recognized that “a difficult balance must be struck in a manner that preserves the peace and security of our nation while at the same time preserving the constitutional rights and civil liberties of all Americans.”

In examining the history of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act, the opinion discussed a change by Congress in October 2001, under the Patriot Act, that allows surveillance and searches if the government declares that “a significant purpose” of that activity is gathering foreign intelligence. In the past, such searches and surveillance had been allowed if “the purpose” was to obtain foreign intelligence.
Congress’s intent, the opinion said, was “to break down barriers between criminal law enforcement and intelligence gathering.” Judge Aiken said a practical effect of “a seemingly minor change in wording” was to allow the government to avoid the constitutional probable cause requirement.

“In place of the Fourth Amendment,” the judge wrote, “the people are expected to defer to the Executive Branch and its representation that it will authorize such surveillance only when appropriate.”

She said the government was “asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning.”

A spokesman for the Justice Department, Peter Carr, said it was reviewing the decision and declined to comment further.

A lawyer for Mr. Mayfield, Elden Rosenthal, issued a statement on his behalf saying that Judge Aiken “has upheld both the tradition of judicial independence and our nation’s most cherished principle of the right to be secure in one’s own home.”


Artículo del The New York Times

FindLaw News: La justicia tejana lleva a cabo ejecución por inyección letal

Texas executes another inmate despite sweeping Supreme Court review of lethal injections
MICHAEL GRACZYK Associated Press Writer

(AP) - HUNTSVILLE, Texas-America's busiest death penalty state executed another inmate, just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court said it would review whether the lethal injection method most states use is cruel and unusual.

Michael Richard, 49, was put to death Tuesday for the 1986 shooting of Marguerite Lucille Dixon, a 53-year-old nurse and mother of seven. Richard had been released from his second prison term eight weeks before Dixon was raped and killed inside her home.
news230();

Asked if he'd like to make a final statement, Richard said, "I'd like my family to take care of each other. I love you, Angel. Let's ride."

Another execution, the 27th in Texas this year, remained scheduled for Thursday, and officials said Tuesday's announcement by the U.S. Supreme Court would not affect the state's execution docket.

"We will go forward with our interpretation of the law," Gov. Rick Perry said.
After the Supreme Court's announcement, Richard's attorneys asked the justices to halt his execution in the meantime, but the court rejected that appeal.

Ten of the 37 states that use the three-drug cocktail under review by the Supreme Court have suspended its use after opponents alleged it was ineffective and cruel, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. But Texas is unlikely to halt lethal injections unless the Supreme Court issues a blanket stay.

"We are monitoring this, but until the court rules or gives direction, nothing changes from our perspective," said Allison Castle, a Perry spokeswoman.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott declined to comment.

If the three-drug cocktail were outlawed, it would not be the first time Texas adapted to changing rules on how to humanely execute inmates. Criminals who committed capital crimes died by hanging in Texas from 1819 to 1923, said Jason Clark, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

On Feb. 8, 1924, the state executed five people in the electric chair, the method it would use to kill 361 inmates through 1964.

Richard was convicted and sentenced to death in 1987. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals threw out his conviction in 1992 because jurors were not allowed to consider evidence that Richard had been abused as a child. In 1995, a second jury convicted him and sentenced him to die.
At least one psychological assessment put his IQ at 64, with 70 considered the threshold of retardation.

The U.S. Supreme Court turned down requests to halt the execution because of claims Richard was mentally retarded. Attorneys then asked for a reprieve because the court had decided to consider the lethal injection matter, but almost two hours later, the justices rejected the appeal.
---
Associated Press writers Jeff Carlton and Anabelle Garay in Dallas contributed to this report.2007-09-26T01:57:09Z

Publicado por FindLaw News

SCOTUSblog: Sigue la polémica judicial sobre Guantánamo

Detainees seek to block rehearing


Seeking to head off another round in the lower courts before the dispute goes on to the Supreme Court, lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees argued that the D.C. Circuit Court has no need to re-examine the procedures it has laid down for civilian review of the prisoners' challenges to their long-term military captivity. The Bush Administration has asked for rehearing en banc of a July 20 Circuit Court panel decision on Detainee Treatment Act procedures, and told detainees' lawyers to respond. The opposition motion, filed Wednesday, can be found here. The combined cases are Bismullah v. Gates (06-1197) and Parhat v. Gates (06-1397).

To the Administration claim that providing full information about each detainees' status would pose major burdens, the detainees' counsel countered that it was Congress that imposed the requirement for court review of that information, and the Circuit Court "lacks the power to excuse the government from the burden of judicial review." Citing constitutional separation of powers doctrine, the detainees' brief said that "if a problem exists at all, it is for Congress, not the Court, to address."

And to the Administration claim, bolstered by strong statements from the top rank of intelligence officials, that forced disclosure of much of the information about detainees would imperil national security, the detainees' lawyers responded that the Circuit Court has already adopted a "protective order" that will assure confidentiality where needed. "There is no basis for en banc review, certainly not before the Court's safeguards have even to be tested," the brief asserted. Moreover, it added, detainees' lawyers already have higher security clearances than some of the civilian contractors who helped compile information for use against detainees.
The government has told the Circuit Court that, if rehearing is denied, it would then take this controversy on to the Supreme Court, seeking expedited review.

At the heart of this controversy are the roles of two institutions -- Combatant Status Review Tribunals, set up by the Pentagon to review whether detainees should be designated as "enemy combatants" and thus could not be released from custody, and the D.C. Circuit, given the assignment by Congress to review detainees' challenges to CSRT decisions. The government wants the D.C. Circuit's role to be significantly narrower than the Circuit Court has now decreed, and especially wants to be requried only to supply for judicial review what was actually put before the CSRTs to make their findings about detainee status.

The government has suggested that the Circuit Court's July 20 mandate, requiring disclosure to the Court and, to some degree, to detainees' lawyers, of all government information bearing upon a given detainee, is based on a flawed perception that the data is all kept in one easily reached file box when in fact it is spread widely over many federal agencies. The detainees retorted on Wednesday with their own metaphor: "The government and [the intelligence officials] act as though the Court has ordered a search of the Library of Congress, book by book, as if there were no card catalogue." In fact, the detainees' counsel said, there are many paper files at Guantanamo Bay, and there are other sites that detainees' counsel have pointed out to help the government search. The government, the lawyers argued, "simply advocates a rule that would ensure that the Court never learns" of what the government has about detainees.

The Circuit Court has ten active judges now. It would take the votes of at least six of them to grant rehearing en banc. The Circuit Court could act on the government request at any time; the government does not have a right to reply to the detainees' answer.

In another development on detainees, lawyers for a group that may include as many as 40 prisoners asked U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on Wednesday to reconsider his ruling last week ordering the dismissal of all of those habeas cases. In the motion, detainees' counsel argued that the Supreme Court's agreement to hear two detainee cases has put everything on hold, and that Judge Urbina thus lacks jurisdiction to dismiss the cases. The motion can be found here.

Among other reasons the detainees' lawyers want those cases kept intact for the time being is that their dismissal may scuttle court orders giving the lawyers access to their clients at Guantanamo Bay.

Fuente: SCOTUSblog