Less litigation, more practical skills in law school needed, junior associates say
Almost half of law school associates say law school didn’t prepare them for practice, with a lack of training in practical experience cited most often as the reason why, according to a new study released Monday. (Image from Shutterstock)
Almost half of law school associates say law school didn’t prepare them for practice, with a lack of training in practical experience cited most often as the reason why, according to a new study released Monday.
The survey, titled Beyond Tradition: Gen-Z’s Approach to BigLaw, of 546 junior associates was conducted by recruiting firm Major, Lindsey & Africa and Leopard Solutions, a legal data intelligence provider. The survey found that 45% of respondents said law school did not offer the substantive training needed in their current roles.
Nearly one-third of respondents, or 31%, responded that working at their law firms did not match their expectations coming out of law school.
The new attorneys, most of whom would be considered part of Generation Z, also said law schools emphasized litigation instead of practical skills and transactional lawyering, such as corporate, real estate tax and mergers and acquisition.
“We’ve heard this from law firms for a long time—that students aren’t prepared to do the actual work that’s required of them,” says Laura Leopard, the founder and CEO of Leopard Solutions. “This was the first time we looked at Gen Z already working in law firms. It was great to hear this form their own lips.”
“Practice ready” is a hot topic in legal education after Oregon moved to include experiential education as a path to the bar and other jurisdictions consider it.
The NextGen bar exam, emphasizing legal skills and practical knowledge instead of memorization necessary to pass the current Uniform Bar Examination, is set to launch in 2026. Some law schools now are rethinking their pedagogy as a result.
The survey was conducted in January and February, with 92% of the first-, second- and third-year associates stating they worked at an Am Law 200 firm. Many of those surveyed were in law school or launched their careers during the era of remote law school and work because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Work-life balance issues emerged as a priority in the survey. When asked what they would trade a portion of compensation for, 52% wanted a cut in billable hours, 36% wanted more time off and 27% wanted more of a flexible work schedule.
“A very large portion of them may not be motivated by the big salaries that big law offers,” says Jacqueline Bokser LeFebvre, managing director of Major, Lindsey and Africa. “Gen Z is very vocal about what they want. They’re more apt to really follow through and act on their beliefs.”
Diversity is also important to this cohort, with 39% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing that associates at their firm were racially diverse.
“Gen Z itself is more diverse,” Bokser LeFebvre says. “Diversity is not just something that is important to them from the social justice perspective. They want to see themselves represented within the law firm setting.”
Nevertheless, 83% of respondents state they would choose their firm again if they had it to do over, with 74% citing the firm’s culture, 67% citing firm reputation and 67% citing compensation. Additionally, 79% reported their work as satisfying.
