Class of 1972 Five Year Report - PDF

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 27
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information Report
Category:

Articles & News Stories

Published:

Views: 15 | Pages: 27

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Related documents
Description
University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository UMLS Alumni Survey Class Reports University of Michigan Law School Alumni Survey Project Class of 972 Five Year
Transcript
University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository UMLS Alumni Survey Class Reports University of Michigan Law School Alumni Survey Project Class of 972 Five Year Report University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Legal Education Commons, and the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation University of Michigan Law School, Class of 972 Five Year Report (978). This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Michigan Law School Alumni Survey Project at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UMLS Alumni Survey Class Reports by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact Ll\W SCHOOL ALUMNI SURVEY class of 972 I. INTRODUCTION The University of Michigan Law School is interested in its Alumni, their post-law school careers, their evaluation of its program and curriculum, as well as their suggestions of improvements. The Law School has conducted surveys for the past thirteen years of its graduates in their fifteenth year after graduation. Four years ago, for the first time, a survey was made of the graduates in their fifth year after graduation. That there is an interest in such a survey on the part of graduates is indicated by the percentages of response: 86% of the class of 968, 84% of the class of 969, 86% of the Class of 97, 84% of the class of 97, and 7~ of the Class of 972. The questionnaire has been kept virtually the same for each class to facilitate accumulation and c~~parison of data. II. THE FRESHMAN CI.J'\SS OF 969 Residence: One hundred and forty-five (35%) of the 44 members of the graduating class of 972 were Michigan residents: 44 carne from Ohio: 36 from Illinois; 35 from New York; 9 from Indiana; 4 from New Jersey: each from Pennsylvania, california and Wisconsin; 9 from Massachusetts; 8 from Missouri; and 7 each from Florida, Iowa and Kansas. The remainder listed 24 other states. Three hundred and twenty-six questionnaires were returned in time for analysis. Academic Background: The class entered from a record 26 different undergraduate schools. Schools from most sections of the country were represented, but heaviest representation was from the Midwest and the East. As would be expected the University of Michigan supplied the largest number in the class., Aqe: The age range of the class at entrance to law school was from 2 through 46, with the av.erage age 22. The median was also 22. III. THE YEARS Financial Support: The principal source of income and support during the law school years for most of the respondents was family support (spouse, parents, grandparents, etc.) including money borrowed from relatives. The next most important was earnings during law school years including summer earnings. The third source of support was savings from pre-law earnings, with university of Michigan administered loans a fourth source. Sixty-two listed non-university of Michigan student loans (those with special interest rate or repayment terms for students). Fifty-four listed G.I. Bill or other veterans benefits, and 33 listed University of Michigan scholarships as a source of support, with 2 listing these scholarships as their most important source. The least important source of income was commercial loans at the usual rate of interest. Table I indicates some statistics about students who were employed in the regular academic year while in law school. TABLE I Number of Respondents Distributed by Year of Law School and by Average NUmber of Hours Worked Per Week During School Terms H u R s p E R w E E K LAW SCHOOL YEAR First Second Third None Less than More than No answer Total The figures shown do not necessarily follow individual respondents through each year, but the trend clearly shows that more students worked each year and more students worked longer hours each year as they progressed through school. Grades: Scores for the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) were available for all but one graduate. The high score was 785; the low score was 32. The arithmetical mean or average for the 43 was 626. This is a better score than that scored by approximately 85% of all persons then taking the test. The average undergraduate grade point of the class of '72 was 3.8. For comparison the average GPA's and LSAT's for the classes entering the past 5 years were: -3- Class GPA ~ At the end of three years almost half the class members had maintained a law school grade average between 2. and 3., and exactly one half had averages of Three were in the 4- point range. The average for the class was 2.98: the median was 3.. The correlation of the LSAT scores to law school grade averages is shown in the following table. TABLE II correlation Between LSAT and Grade Point Average L s A T T h ree-year curnu at~ve Gra d e Po~nt A verage 4. & Over Total % 7 4.5% 42 &_ % 38 55% 44% 25 % % 63 58% % 8 % % 9 % % 3 % TOtal 3. 7% 27 5% 22 49%.3% 43* & *No LSAT score for student IV. THE YEARS Residence: Three hundred and twenty-four of the 326 who replied are presently located in 34 states and the District of COlumbia, and one each in England and the Virgin Islands. Table III indicates the movement of the 326 from what was considered the home state at the time of admission to their present location. TABLE III Number fran Number Presently Net State State in 969 Located in State Change Alaska + Arizona + Arkansas 2 2 california colorado connecticut Delaware - District of COlumbia 2 +2 Florida 7 5-2 State Number from State in 969 NUmber Presently Located in State Net Change Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Missouri Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey 'ew Mexico New York North Carolina Ohio Oklahana Oregon Pennsylvania South carolina Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin ~ngland Virgin Islands Those listed in column Number Presently LOcated in State are ~isted by the state in which they have their office. Occasionally ~he office and residence are in different states. Size of COmmunities: Table IV organizes the respondents in terms ~ the size ~f the community in which they work: it also compares igures for all lawyers throughout the country. -5- TABLE IV Size of Class of '72 All Lawyers in U.S.* c ommunj.ty Num b er Percent Numb er Percent Under 25M 22 7% 25M to loom 36 % 8% 32,868 37% loom to 2M 38.5% loom to 25M 39,62 % 2M to SOOM 4 2.5% 25M to SOOM 4,75 2% - SOOM to M % - sao,. , 42,37 4% Over M % Total 326 '% 355,242 % *The 97 Lawyer Statistical Report, AmerJ.can Bar Foundation, 972 A comparison of the Class of '72 with the consolidated results of the 5-Year survey of the Classes of '52 through '62 shows a significantly larger percentage of the '72 Class working in communities over 5M and nearly equal decrease in communities under loom. Unfortunately we do not know the figures for these other classes when they were five years out of school. TABLE V Size of community Classes '52 through '62 NUmber Percent Under 25M 244.7% 25M to loom % 28.4% loom to 2M 28.4% 48* 2.3% 22.9% 2M to 5 M 24.2% - SOOM to M % % Over M % Total 2,92** % *Class of '52 where division was, to 5, ** 6 did not answer. Percent based on 2,92. According to the May 977-May 978 Report of the University of Michigan Placement Office 32 seniors out of 389* had reported definite plans for employment as of May 3, 978. The distribution as to size of community is very similar to that of the class of '72. Fourteen percent of the 32 are locating in communities of under thousand, and 6~~ in communities of 5 thousand through over million. *Figure includes graduates for August and December 977 and May of 978. Table Vl: shows the correlation between the sizes of hometowns and present location of class members. TABLE VI SJ.Ze o f CJ.ty o f OrJ.gJ.n ~ize of City Under 25M to loom to 2M to 5M to Where Working Totals 25M loom 2M 5M M Under 25M M to loom loom to 2M M to 5 M M to ljii Over M TOtals Over M Table Vl:I shows the correlation between size of community and various occupations of the members of the class of '72 -7- s~ze Where Under TABLE VII correlation Between Size of City of Present LOcation and Occupation f C~ty Occuoat~on Working A B c D E F Total 25M M to loom loom to 2M M to 5 M M to M Over M Total * * no answer as to occupation Key: A - Lawyers in private practice or in a law firm B - Lawyers, salaried other than law firms (excluding judges, teachers and legislators) C - Educators D - JUdges E - Legislators F - Non-lawyers Apparently most of the Michigan law alumni are wedded to the practice of law - the above table shows 94% of those who responded for the Class of '72 are doing just that, and 69% are in private practice. OUt of 284 replies from Classes '52 through '62 in the 5-Year Survey 84% are engaged in the practice of law and 64% are in private practice. Further information about members in these categories was obtained through the questionnaire. Of the 82 lawyers in Category B (salaried, other than judges, teachers and legislators) 44 are employed by federal, state, county or city government. Thirty are employed by organizations for profit, and 8 checked other. Five in category c (educator) are professors in law schools. The other three in education are in administration, two on the college or junior college level, and one in a law school. The one judge is an elected official in a state or local trial court. There is one legislator among the respondents. Of tbe 9 who checked Category F (non-lawyer) 2 are sole or co-proprietors (own more than 3% interest) of a business: 2 are employees in supervisory positions (non-government): is an employee in a non-supervisory position (non-government): is employed by government (excluding judges, educators, and legislators)7 and 3 checked other... The other included court club management, director of research services for a private law firm, and one has been unemployed since leaving military service. The questionnaire also requested information on the kinds of work performed by those in categories Band F (see above). Of salaried employees (either lawyer or non-lawyer, working in an organization other than a law firm and excluding judges, teachers and legislators) 68 are legal staff in corporate or governmental organizations. The remainder have diverse occupations which include President, assistant General Manager, tax specialist, trust and estate specialist, accounting, international trade, Senate investigator, senior supervising engineer, legal services for indigent, administrator for public sector labor relations agency, legal aid attorney, law clerk, public interest law firm, business-contract negotiations. Of those 68 respondents who checked legal staff, corporate or government, 8 are general counsel, 2 are trial or hearing specialists, 2 are international counsel, 2 are legislation counsel, l is patent counsel and is tax counsel. The remaining 2 indicated their job function as one of the following: corporate attorney-litigation, legal aid, antitrust, area counsel military lawyer, criminal defense, labor union counsel, assistant general counsel, securities counsel, corporate distribution, administrative law-public utilities, associate general counsel, regulatory law, assistant county presecutor, food and drug counsel, general corporate, and division attorney. combining categories A and B (i.e., all those working as lawyers whether employed or in private practice, a total of 36) the questionnaire asked for the number of other lawyers in the respondent's office or department. Table VIII gives the results. TABLE VIII Respondents Distributed According to NUmber of Other Lawyers in Office or Department l Over 5 No ans ~ Accortiiii~f- to 'rhe 97 LaWVer Stati.sTica~- ReeOrt, Amercan Bar Poundation, 972, and other studies, tbe number of individual practitioners has been steadily decrea.aing since 948, while the number of partnerships and associates has baed increasing. The class of -9- '72 seems to reflect this trend. Thirty-three and one-half percent of the respondents in private practice are members of a partnership or professional corporation, and 5~ are employees of a partnership or professional corporation. This makes a total of over 92% of the respondents in private practice thus employed. The 97 Statistical Report also notes an increase in the percentage of lawyers employed by private industry, educational institutions, and other private employment. Over sixteen percent (54) of the Class of 972 respondents are thus employed. TABLE IX Lawyers in Private Practice* class of 972 % of Those %of All % of All NUmber In Private 972 Re- Lawyers in Practice spendents Practice (97)*~ Sole _p~actitioner 8 3.7% 2. 5%_ 7. 4,., 5% 36.6% ~ole practitioner 8 in non-partnership 3.7% 2.5% ~ember of a % 22.5% 28.5% p~artnership Employee of a (Associate) partnership % 39.5% 7.6% ~espondents not in () (3%) p~ivate practice *6 in private practice did not answer this. Percent based on 28. **The 97 Lawyer Statistical Report, American Bar Foundation, 972 One hundred and forty-four of the 224 practitioners (category A of Table VII) have been in private practice for approximately 5 years. Forty-seven more have been in private practice for 3 through 4 years, and 3 have been in practice for through 2 years. Three in this category did not answer this question. TWenty others indicated they had been in private practice for at least one year, many for several years, although they were not at the present time. Those respondents who do not work in the field of law were asked to indicate why. Four were dissatisfied with doing legal work, and three wanted to work in business or corporate management. Others indicated: need for greater intellectual stimulation, wanted to go into government service, need for less pressure on the job, engage in work involving more public service, not found satisfactory employment, and one received an offer he couldn't refuse. Regardless of occupation respondents were asked to indicate the number of firms or organizations with which they have held positions since graduation from law school. The response is given -- in the following table. TABLE X Number of Firms or Organizations NUmber of Respondents No ans. 2 I 9 J Ssecialties: Those m~~ers of.the class working as lawyers whether in practice, for government, or for a corporation, were asked to indicate their specialty,or specialties, if they had any. Specialty was defined as an area of law in which one spends more than 25% of his working time. Members were asked to limit themselves to three responses. Classifying occupations by subject matter has only limited value in revealing a lawyer's true function. But lawyers are accustomed to identifying themselves in these terms and thus should have a fair notion of the meaning of a classification of the sort listed below. Table XI lists specialties in order of frequency of response. TAB;LE XI: Subject Area Trial, General corporations & Business counseling Real Property Other Banking & commercial Law Trial, Negligence Administrative Law criminal Law Family Law Labor Law Taxation ~ecurities Issuance & RegUlation! Negligence, Investigation & Negotiation Trust & Probate Antitrust I Bankruptcy-COllections ilto area accounts for more than 25% of time ~orkmen s COmpensation eloyee Benefits... islation lie Utility Regulation Municipal insurance GOvernaent COntracts Oil Gas & Mineral Number of Specialists -- Subject Area (con~'dt Patent, Trademark & copyright Admiralty Aviation International Law Number of Specialists 5 Other special :ies listed include: eminent domain, public welfare, healch care, ~ights of handicapped, estate planning, hospital, business litiga~on, urban renewal, advertising, educational institutions, environmental, consumer credit, consumer protection, international trade, contracts and construction, employment discrimination, tax exe~p~ organizations, computer, land finance, immigration, education, civil rights, negotiation, zoning, general appellate, communica :ions, mental health, products liability, food and drug, shopping center development, military. Women Graduates: In t~e Class of '72 there were 2 (5%) women graduates. That the number of women entering the field of law is on the increase is well-known, and it may be of interest to learn how this trend is reflected in the University of Michigan Law School. TABLE XII Class Total Number of Graduates NUmber of Women Graduates Percent of Women Graduates ~ :;,_ l % 3.3% 7.3% 23.6% 2.6% Part Viii of the questionnaire was devoted to women graduates. Eleven of the 2 women graduates returned completed questionnaires. Five of these said they had experienced special problems in practicing their profession because of their sex. One reported the difficulty was in finding a job, not with the employer. Another cited a certain uneasiness or lack of confidence, not a dissatisfaction with job performance, if a female was in charge. One respondent stated that people assume she is a social worker: another said it was initially difficult to be taken seriously. Another is often mistaken as a receptionist, and found that law enforcement officers accepted a woman attorney much more readily than the general public. All eleven of the respondents are working full time. Most husbands are highly supportive. When asked how they managed to combine work with family responsibilities, 2 answered they do so with ease, 3 with same difficulty. Four of those who are married have one child each. The others have no children. -2- Income: Responde.- ;;s were asked to indicate their average income (before taxes and excluding investment income) for the past year. JUdging from the ~e~-..:~:.:.ed questionnaires the class of '72 is doing very well financ~a:l:'. Sixty-f~ve and one-half percent of the 36 ( did not answer ~hi5 section) are earning $25, or over, with 6.5% earning over ~4: ~=~- Twenty-four percent more are earning between $2J,OOC ;: r.o S25,. Eight percent are earning from $2,5 to $2,C. ~3ble XIII shows the correlation between occupation and income. TABLE XIII Inco.-ne A B ' Below $5, lc $5,-7,499 $7,5-9,999 6 I 7 3 OccupatJ.on l c D I I!! i 5 E F Total 3.5% 3% 2 4% $2,-22,499 2 I : 32 % $22,5-24, :.3 2 $25,-29, $3,-34, $35,-4, 2 3 pver $4, 9 No answer 5 2 ~tal * no answer as to occupation **Percent based on % % 7 22% % % 9 325* ()%* Key: A - Lawyer, private practice or law firm 8 - Salaried lawyer, other than law firm C - Educator D - JUdge E - Legislator P - Other Table XIV compares lawyers in private practice or with a law firm with all other respondents as to income. -3- TABLE XIV Practitioner Compared With All Other categories Private Practitioner Income Ranqe Number I Percent I Below $5, 4.6% All Others Number Percent % ~5,-7,499 7 $7,5-9,999 6 $2,-22,499 2 ~22,5-24, $25,-29, $3,-34, $35,-4, 2 pver $4, 9!NO answer 5 Total 224 ; *Based on 29 **Based on % 2.7% 9.6%.4% 27% 23.7% 9.% 8.7% %* 3 3.% 6 6.2%.3% 9 9.6% 34 35% 8 8.6% 3 3.% 2 2.% 4 %** Table XV distributes the private practice lawyers according to the category which most closely describes their situation and income. -4- TABLE XV Lawyers in Private Practice Income I II Below $5, I 3 III 2 IV 3 Total 9 4% $5,-7,499 $7,5-9,999 L I I ' ~ % 6 3% $2,-22, % $22,5-24, % $25,-29, % $3,-34, % ~35,-4, % pver $4, % INo answer 3 4 r,t'otal * %** *6 did not check category **Percent based on 24 Key: I - Sole practitioner II - Member of a partnership III - Sole practitioner in non-partnership association IV - Employee of a partnership In a demographic study entitled In Search of the Average Lawyer conducted by the ABA Journal and reported in the December, 97, Volume 56 issue, the average annual income reported by r~spondents at that time was $27,96: the median was $2,26. V. THE law SCHOOL PROGRAM The respo
Recommended
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks