According to Harvard University, there are between 760,000
and 1,100,000 attorneys in the United States in 2007.
The distinction between these numbers reflects a difference in the way counting
occurs. The first figure comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and is
focused on how many people earn a living practicing law. The higher figure
represents the best estimate from the American Bar Association (ABA), which includes those with licenses who do not necessarily practice.
According to the Harvard site, the ABA figure resulted in a
ratio of one lawyer for every 300 people in the U.S. They report that this
ratio was “flat for most of the 20th Century, and then rose
dramatically after 1970, roughly doubling between 1970 and 2000.” This one
hundred percent increase over thirty years is dramatic from any perspective.
However, the Harvard page notes that this increase was “similar to increases in
the share of service and knowledge-based jobs in the U.S. economy since 1970.”
In other words, the Harvard conclusion is that the increase in attorney
population is consistent with the more general shift from manufacturing in this
country.
Harvard also notes that in 1970 there were 144 law schools,
and by 2007 there were 196. This is fifty-two additional law schools over the
space of 37 years. They note that the
volume of graduates from law school is more dramatic than the growth in new
schools, while noting that that the “elite” school graduation volumes have not risen. This suggests their conclusion
that the “non-elite” school graduation volumes are responsible for the
increasing volume of attorneys.
What got me interested in this was an article in Forbes
recently that described the growing technology dependence of medical
professionals. The author notes that physicians are projected to spend about $69 billion on
technology by 2017. These expenditures
will seek the grail of leveraging technology to create provider (physician,
technician, therapist) efficiency. The more efficient a provider can be, the
greater the profit. That, at least, is the thought.
The Forbes author argues, however, that the American healthcare crisis is not a failure of efficiency. He notes that there is one licensed physician for every 370 people in the United States. Please recall from above that there is an attorney for every 300 people. So, you would theoretically have an easier time finding an attorney than a doctor. The figures from Forbes break down to physicians spending about $20,000 each on technology in each of the next four years.
As an aside, the Association of American Medical Colleges states that it
“represents all 141 accredited U.S. and 17 accredited Canadian medical
schools.” According to the American Osteopathic
Association, there are another 26 “osteopathic medical colleges” in the U.S. So
a total of about 167 osteopathic or medical schools in the United States at the
present time. I wonder whether an increase in ("non-elite) medical schools would help with availability and cost of care in this country?
The main point remains though. Will lawyers spend similarly on technology in the next four years? Not likely. Some of the $69 billion in medicine spending will be on cutting edge diagnostic equipment which does not translate to the legal field. However, there is support that lawyers are spending significantly on
technology. A recent survey reported that the majority of attorneys are spending
on tablets, such as the i-pad and similar. The market analyses also support that attorneys are investing in software, particularly applications, for organization of documents, tracking of resources, processing of documents, and more. Much of this is investment in commercial software to use, but many firms are investing in applications of their own, for use by their clients or the public generally.
A challenge will remain though. Attorneys will be challenged to find technology that actually brings value to their practice, technology that actually results in efficiency and creates the leverage which leads to profit. That will be the challenge. Does a particular hardware or software actually make the practice more efficient, more effective, or more productive? If not, this particular technology may be today's overpriced fad that is tomorrow's lament.
I am a technology proponent and advocate. But I urge caution in the acquisition and encourage a critical consideration of these questions before you invest. The best source of advice, in my opinion, is the "early adopters" whom you know. They buy, use and position themselves to provide you good advice on whether a particular innovation is a fad or a necessity. Look to the marketplace to focus on the professions. With predicted numbers like $69 in the next four years, the developers and manufacturers will be drawn to the professions like bees to pollen. With the continued expansion of the lawyer population, the leveraging and exploitation of technology may define who survives and who thrives in the marketplace.
