Legal Commentary

This is a joint post with Nelson Tebbe:



As a matter of chance, we both have been guest-blogging this month, we have offices down the hall from each other, and we are both serving on our school?s entry-level appointments committee.  So we thought we would join forces and dedicate our final post to a few reflections on the unusual market conditions this year.

Since so much has been said about the contracting legal market, we have been wondering how that market might impact academic hiring by law schools.   There is an argument for withdrawing from the hiring process altogether this year.  Since recruitment and hiring costs money, the argument goes, schools should instead wait to see what the broader legal market will do before they add or even replace faculty members.  You might think of this as the conservative business-model of law school hiring:  Wait and see what happens before you make relatively irreversible commitments in funding.   (Of course we recognize that for some law schools, this approach is a matter of financial exigency, not forecasting. )

On the other side, some will argue that law schools (particularly those with sound finances) should not waste this opportunity to recruit stellar candidates who would greatly enhance the schools? academic and professional missions.  In other words, the reward of catching a particularly good candidate is well worth the costs entailed in recruiting. We think that this standard back-and-forth tends to ignore several additional benefits that arise from participating in the annual process of faculty recruiting. 

First, interviewing candidates introduces the school to potential (and, for laterals, current) academics on a much larger scale, and in a more intense way, than ordinary conferences and workshops do.  Both of us vividly recall our impressions of the schools with whom we interviewed during the recruitment process.  Moreover, during this process, we met people who became important correspondents and even collaborators. 

Second, recruiting strengthens bonds among the current faculty.  Whereas workshops and symposia may be attended only by specialists, job talks often draw a larger portion of the faculty.   If faculty members attend the workshop and ask questions, they not only get to know the candidate, but they also reacquaint themselves with their own colleagues.  The conversation often continues afterward in hallways and offices. Recruiting is particularly helpful for bonding among and between newer professors, who may find that hiring dinners provide a perfect context for getting to know their colleagues.



Finally, reading and discussing candidate papers exposes the faculty to a greater variety of new ideas, builds a common discussion about those ideas, and may stimulate overall scholarly productivity.



In short, participating in the hiring process produces benefits for the school even if the faculty does not end up extending a single offer.  That is not to say that recruiting does not entail significant costs - of course it does.  Our point is only that in evaluating those costs, schools should not lose sight of its ancillary benefits. 



We want to thank Dan and the entire Prawfs community for giving us the opportunity to join in the conversation this month. Enjoy the last few weeks of summer!