ISBA Board accepts report calling for law school reform

ISBA President John E. Thies (center) with the co-chairs of the Special Committee on the Impact of Law School Debt on the Delivery of Legal Services, Justice Ann B. Jorgensen and Dennis J. Orsey.The Illinois State Bar Association has released a 53-page report, supported with research and testimony from statewide hearings, that calls for dramatic changes in the way law schools deliver education.

“The current system of educating law students is unsustainable,” said ISBA President John E. Thies, of Urbana, IL. ”The debt burden of new attorneys, combined with the difficult job market, is having a detrimental effect on the public’s ability to access quality legal services.”

In June 2012, Thies appointed a Special Committee on the Impact of Law School Debt on the Delivery of Legal Services, co-chaired by Illinois Appellate Court justice Ann B. Jorgensen of Wheaton and attorney Dennis J. Orsey of Granite City. Their report and recommendations were accepted on Friday, March 8, at a meeting of the ISBA Board of Governors in Urbana, and the Board recommended that the ISBA’s policy-making Assembly approve the report at its next meeting in June.

The Special Committee conducted a series of five hearings around the state receiving testimony from private attorneys, government attorneys, public defenders, legal aid lawyers, law students, judges, law professors and law school deans. Testimony centered on their “front line” experiences with the burden of school debt as new graduates begin their practices. Based on the testimony and other research, the Special Committee concluded that the law school debt crisis is seriously and negatively impacting the quality and availability of legal services that the legal profession provides in Illinois.

According to the report, “The average student graduates from law school today with over $100,000 of law school debt. After adding accrued interest, undergraduate debt, and bar study loans, the debt burden of new attorneys frequently increases to $150,000 to $200,000, levels of debt that impose a crushing burden on new lawyers.”

The Special Committee made a series of recommendations to mitigate the law school debt crisis and transform legal education to focus on educating lawyers at an affordable price.

  • Congress and the Department of Education should place reasonable limits on the amount that law students can borrow from the federal government.
  • Rather than allowing all accredited law schools to enroll students receiving federal student loans, Congress should restrict federal loan eligibility to schools whose graduates meet certain employment and debt-repayment outcomes.
  • The federal government should ensure that funds available in these programs are targeted to students most in need.
  • Law schools must have the ability to experiment with new models of legal education to find the best ways to control costs while still delivering a quality education.
  • Law schools themselves must transform their curricula to more emphasis on practice-oriented courses, with greater focus during the second and third years of school on helping students transition to practice through apprenticeships, practical courses and teaching assistantships, rather than the more traditional doctrinal courses. Needed reforms also include changes to law school faculty.

“There will be a strong role for the organized bar in helping ensure change,” said Thies. “These include facilitating apprenticeships, pro bono projects, facilitating the sale of rural law practices to young lawyers, and providing debt counseling and resources for lawyers and prospective law students.”

NOTE: The  full “Report and Recommendations of the Illinois State Bar Association Special Committee on the Impact of Law School Debt on the Delivery of Legal Services” is available at

Posted on March 12, 2013 by Chris Bonjean

Member Comments (2)

Student loans and law school reporting became bloated and detached from reality. As a recent graduate I appreciate the recommendations towards bringing more transparency, and a leaner more efficient system.

I'm not clear about the recommended restrictions on the amount the U.S. Department of Educations allows students to borrow. If students are able to borrow less from the federal loan program, and the cost of tuition remains the same, is the purpose behind the reform movement being achieved? In this scenario, it seems there would either be less people who would be able to go to law school, or more people making up the difference in private loans. Are there also requirements that law schools keep their tuition rates at a certain amount?

Login to post comments