MEMORANDUM. From: Christopher M. Pietruszkiewicz, Chair, Data Policy and Collection Committee

MEMORANDUM To: ABA Council of the Section of Legal Education From: Christopher M. Pietruszkiewicz, Chair, Data Policy and Collection Committee Re: Revisions to the Employment Questionnaire Relating to School-Funded Positions Date: March 2, 2015 The reporting of law graduate employment outcomes is governed by Standard 509 of the ABA Standards for Approval of Law Schools. Standard 509(a) provides that [a]ll information that a law school reports, publicizes, or distributes shall be complete accurate and not misleading to a reasonable law school student or applicant. Standard 509(b) further provides that [a] law school shall publicly disclose on its website, in the form and manner and for the time frame designated by the Council the following information:... (7) employment outcomes. The Data Policy and Collection Committee (Committee) considered how positions funded by law schools after graduation are classified by law schools and reported under Standard 509. Some law schools provide jobs for some of their graduates. The form of these jobs varies. In some cases, they are fellowships in public interest settings; in other cases, they are jobs doing research at the law school; and they can take other forms. Such positions generally have certain important features in common: the law school pays the graduates, directly or indirectly, and the jobs are temporary (they typically last up to a year, or very slightly longer). The question addressed by this memorandum is how these positions should be reported by the law schools to the ABA, and by the ABA and law schools to prospective students and other members of the public. At present, law schools report most of these positions as long-term, full-time jobs. The jobs are therefore categorized, and presented to the public, in the same way as jobs elsewhere that are meant to last indefinitely and for which all law school graduates can compete (such as ordinary jobs at law firms, or in the government, or in public interest settings). The Committee has no criticism to make of these school-funded jobs, which often serve a valuable purpose for the student and, in some cases, for the public served by the position. The Committee believes, however, that the current categorization of such jobs is misleading in the following respects. First, jobs that law schools provide for their graduates rarely are true long-term jobs. Long term is defined by ABA rules as meaning that the job lasts for at least a year. That definition is meant as a proxy to define jobs that will last more or less indefinitely. Jobs that schools provide to their graduates are, in almost all cases, highly temporary. Often the graduate

2 is not committed to the job even for the full year, but rather is free to take a more attractive job if one appears (and this is the outcome that the school and the student hope will occur). Second, and more importantly, jobs that a school creates for its graduates are not provided by the market. If a prospective student reads that a high percentage of a law school s graduates have full-time, long-term jobs, that number creates an impression about the value of a degree from that school in the job market. If a portion of those jobs are not provided by the market, but are temporary jobs the school created for its graduates (directly or indirectly), the result is a misleading impression of the results the student can expect in the actual job market. In response to these points, and after consideration of many alternatives, the Committee unanimously recommends two changes in the annual Employment Questionnaire. The first is to move the reporting of school-funded positions above the line in the Employment Summary Report form, so that they are reported as a separate Employment Status category (along with Employed Bar Passage Required, Employed J.D. Advantage, etc.), as shown on the attached proposed Employment Summary Report (Attachment A). The second recommendation is to amend the EQ Definitions and Instructions to provide that school-funded positions ordinarily will be reported as short-term positions (Attachment B is a red-lined draft. 1 Attachment C is a clean draft.) These recommendations do not reflect any negative view of school-funded jobs. Schools are free to continue offering them and to publicize them as they like. The recommendations made here are to provide accuracy and clarity, and to avoid misleading consumers of the data that the ABA collects and requires schools to publish. The Committee also recommends that exceptions be made to the rules just proposed if a job, and the funding for it, is open to graduates of all law schools, and when the graduate who accepts the job is committed to it for a full year. A job of that kind is within the spirit of the definition of a long-term position. A judicial clerkship, for example, satisfies those criteria, and is appropriately classified as long term even though it typically lasts for exactly one year. Clerkships are competitive positions that are consistent with market-generated jobs. If a job funded by a school has those same characteristics, it can reasonably be classified as a full-time, long-term position as well. The Committee recommends, finally, that its proposed changes be effective with the current reporting cycle. We are assured by ABA staff that it is practically feasible to do so. The Committee considered these matters at its January 16-17, 2015 meeting. In advance of the meeting, the Committee gave public notice of possible revisions regarding the reporting of school-funded positions. The Committee received 25 comments (Attachment D), many from schools that employ some of their graduates for a period after graduation, reflecting a range of viewpoints. 1 The red-lined draft also reflects the addition of a clause at the end of the definition of Public Interest to clarify that such positions include public and appellate defender positions that are not funded by the government.

3 Background The increasing numbers of reported long-term, full-time, bar-passage-required, schoolfunded positions The number of graduates reported as holding long-term, full-time, bar-passage-required positions that are funded by their law schools has increased substantially by more than 60% -- since the graduating class of 2011 when the ABA began collecting this information. For the class of 2011, schools reported 476 graduates as holding long-term, full-time, school-funded positions. (The class of 2011 EQ did not ask whether school-funded positions were Bar Passage Required, J.D. Advantage, Professional, or Non-Professional. Thus, the number of bar-passagerequired positions would have been something less than 476.) For the class of 2012, schools reported 517 graduates in full-time, long-term, bar-passage-required positions funded by their law schools. For the class of 2013, the number of school-funded long-term, bar-passage-required positions was 774. The proportion of jobs that are reported as long-term, full-time, bar-passage-required, and school-funded positions In the class of 2012, there were a total of 26,079 graduates reported as having full-time, long-term, bar-passage-required jobs with 517 of these positions sponsored by a law school or 2% of all jobs reported for the class of 2012. In the class of 2013, there were a total of 26,676 graduates reported as having full-time, long-term, bar-passage-required jobs with 774 schoolfunded full time, long term bar passage jobs or 2.9% of all jobs reported for the class of 2013. 2 The number of schools that employ their graduates A relatively small number of schools account for the vast majority of school-funded positions. For the class of 2012, there were 64 law schools that had any school-funded, full-time, long-term bar-passage-required jobs, of which 30 had 1 such job, 11 had 2 such jobs, 5 had 3 such jobs, and 4 had 4 such jobs. Significantly for the class of 2012, the remaining 14 schools reported nearly 84% of all school-funded, full-time, long-term, bar-passage-required jobs, reporting 434 of the 517 such positions. For the law schools employing the largest number of the their graduates in long-term, bar-passage-required positions -- 4 law schools at which school-funded positions classified as long-term, barpassage-required represented between 12% and 20.1% of their graduates; 2 For the class of 2012, there were a total of 38,307 jobs across all reporting categories. For that class, a total of 1,813 law school graduates had positions funded by law schools across all reporting categories or a total of 4.73% of all jobs. For the class of 2013, there were a total of 38,461 jobs across all reporting categories. For that class, a total of 1,888 law school graduates had positions funded by law schools or a total of 4.91% of all jobs.

4 10 law schools in which long term, bar-passage-required jobs funded by the law school represented 2.1% to 8.1% of the schools graduates. For the class of 2013, there were 70 law schools that had any school-funded, full-time, long-term, bar-passage-required jobs, of which 20 schools had 1 such job, 11 had 2 such jobs, 6 had 3 such jobs, 3 had 4 such jobs, and 5 had 5 such jobs, representing a relatively small number of jobs. Most of the long-term, bar-passage-required school-funded positions were reported by the remaining 25 schools, representing 87% of all the school-funded, full-time, long-term, barpassage-required jobs, with 677 of the 774 such jobs. Each of these schools had 6 or more such jobs, with 22 of the law schools having 10 or more such jobs. For the remaining 25 law schools employing 6 or more of their graduates in long term, bar-passage-required positions 5 law schools in which these positions represented between 11.3% and 21.3% of the schools graduates. 11 law schools in which these positions represented between 6% - 9.3% of the schools graduates 9 law schools in which these positions represented between 1.9% and 5.1% of the schools graduates. The decreasing numbers of school-funded positions reported as part-time The number of full-time, bar-passage-required, school-funded positions reported by schools has increased appreciably, while the number of part-time, bar-passage-required, schoolfunded positions has declined. For the class of 2012, schools reported a total of 485 part-time positions (74 long-term and 411 short-term). For the class of 2013, schools reported a total of 319 part-time positions (35 long-term and 284 short-term), respectively. This is a decline of 34.2% in part-time positions (and a decrease of 52.7% in part-time, long-term, bar-passagerequired positions, and of 30.9% in part-time, short-term, bar-passage-required positions). In the same period, the number of full-time, long-term, bar-passage-required positions increased from 517 to 774, a growth of 257 positions, or 49.7%. Size of the stipends paid to graduates reported as holding full-time school-funded positions Finally, salary information collected and reported by NALP with respect to schoolfunded positions is helpful in understanding the nature of most of these positions. NALP reports that the 25 th, 50th, and 75 th percentile monthly stipends for full-time school-funded positions were $1,000, $1,500, and $2,000, respectively, with 90% of the reported stipends falling between $1,000 and $2,405 per month. Annualized, the range for 90% of all salaries is $12,000 to $28,860, with a median of $18,000. 3 3 Schools reported 289 full-time stipends.

5 Recommendations I. School-Funded Positions Should Be Reported Above The Line in the Employment Summary Report The Committee s recommendation improves the accuracy and completeness of reporting regarding school-funded positions and eliminates the conflation of school-funded positions and market generated positions. The vast majority of school-funded positions are available only to graduates of the school providing the funding, and they therefore differ significantly from all other employment outcomes. They are not generated by the marketplace, but by the school and are specifically limited to its own graduates. Reporting school-funded positions and marketgenerated positions together as Bar Passage Required, J.D. Advantage, or Professional Positions combines fundamentally distinct outcomes in the same categories, and may convey the misimpression that the market-based employment outcomes are greater than is the fact. As noted above, school-funded positions accounted for 2% and 2.9% of all long-term, full-time, bar-passage-required positions reported nationally for the classes of 2012 and 2013, respectively; and comprised as much as 20% of the graduate employment outcomes in the longterm, bar-passage-required category at several law schools. In the class of 2013, school-funded positions caused large increases in the number of full-time, long-term, bar-passage-required jobs reported by five schools: increases of 11.3% to 21.3%. If it were not for our current practice of classifying school-funded positions as longterm, full-time, one school would have dropped from 77% full-time long term bar-passagerequired to 63%; another school would have dropped from 83% to 63%.. By creating a separate category for school-funded positions above the line on the Employment Summary Report, the two distinct types of employment outcomes are clearly delineated and the potential for confusion is reduced. II. School-Funded Positions Should Be Reported as Short-Term Positions Most school-funded positions are reported as long-term. That reporting creates an inaccurate impression, though it has been technically correct under the current broad definition of long-term. The current definition of a long-term position provides in pertinent part one that does not have a definite or indefinite terms of less than one year. It may have a definite length of time as long as the time is one year or longer. It may also have an indefinite length as long as it is expected to last one year or more. Under this definition, schools treat short-term positions as long-term positions. As a result, a school reports positions that it funds as long-term because the position could potentially have a term of one year and one day. But the position almost never can last longer than that, and in

6 many cases everyone concerned hopes that it lasts for a shorter time than that because the graduate will have found a more attractive job. The Committee is convinced that, while some school-funded positions that are reported as long-term are indeed intended by both the graduate and the school to last a year, almost none of them are long term in the sense that most readers would expect from that phrase, and quite a few of them are expected to last for as short a time as possible.. A school s expressed commitment to fund such positions for as long as a year is often premised on the notion that employment will continue only for so long as no other acceptable employment is found by a graduate in the meantime. In short, the classification of these positions as short-term is significantly more accurate than the current long-term classification. The NALP salary data confirm these observations and bolster the Committee s view that these are designed to be short-term bridge positions. The Committee also recognizes that in occasional instances, school-funded jobs consist of fellowships that are sought by very accomplished students. These students could obtain conventional long-term jobs if they wanted them, but they would prefer to do the kind of public interest work that the school-funded one-year fellowship allows. The schools that sponsor these fellowships may object that if their public interest fellowships are not counted as full-time, that result is misleading: it then might appear to a prospective student that the graduate did not have a long-term job, when in fact the graduate could have had one but chose otherwise. The Committee s view is that while cases like that exist, they are modest in number. The Committee s firm belief is that whatever misimpressions of that kind may be created by its proposed rule, they are small compared to the misimpressions created by the current reporting rules. The Committee gave full consideration to many alternative approaches, including those submitted by schools in their comments as well as other possibilities. Some of those approaches, for example, would parse school-funded outcomes more closely. The Committee unanimously concluded that the rules proposed here will, on balance, best serve the aims of Standard 509. Finally, the Committee s recommendations are careful not to suggest that school-funded employment outcomes are disfavored or less valued than other outcomes. In fact, the Committee views these positions as valuable training and experience for graduates to prepare them for marketplace jobs. While different in important respects from other outcomes, they are often highly desirable and beneficial jobs in which graduates serve the public interest, and are able to find entry into permanent government and public interest positions. As a result, schools that offer school-funded positions have every incentive to (and do) market their programs and publicize them on their websites to prospective students and other interested persons. This recommendation does nothing to change the ability of schools to publicize these opportunities; nor does it change other incentives for law schools to provide these opportunities. III. There Should be an Exception for Certain Law School and University Positions that are Open to Graduates of All Law Schools The Committee also recommends an exception to the above-proposed rules where a job, and the funding for it, is open to graduates of all law schools, and both the school and the

7 graduate envision the job to last at least a year. A job of that kind is within the spirit of the definition of a long-term position. A judicial clerkship, for example, satisfies those criteria, and is appropriately classified as long-term even though it typically lasts for exactly one year. Clerkships are competitive positions; students who can obtain them are succeeding in the job market. If a job funded by a school has those same characteristics, it can reasonably be classified as a full-time, long-term position as well. The rationale for defining long-term as a year or longer was in fact to permit classification of one-year judicial clerkships as long-term positions although the term of employment is not indefinite. This exception would allow for classifying a permanent position in the University general counsel s office or as a professor as a non-schoolfunded position where they meet the requirements of the exception. In conclusion, the Committee notes that its recommendations may not be popular with some schools that provide jobs for their graduates. Some schools who provide such jobs may be made worse off; if the one-year jobs they provide are not counted as full-time, long-term barpassage-required jobs, the employment rate of their graduates may not appear to be as high as it now does. The Committee believes the result of its recommendations will generally be more accurate, however, and thus will benefit the consumers of ABA information. While schools that could be adversely impacted by the Committee s recommendations may register objections to them (and many did so in their comments submitted to the Committee), the parties who will benefit from the recommendations prospective students are not likely to be heard from in this process, yet they have the most at stake as they decide whether and where to attend law school. Data Policy and Collection Committee Christopher M. Pietruszkiewicz, Dean, Stetson University College of Law, Chair Ward Farnsworth, Dean, University of Texas School of Law Art Gaudio, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Western New England University College of Law Frank Houdek, Southern Illinois University School of Law Mandie LeBeau, Director of Career Services, New England Law Boston School of Law Tomea Mersmann, Associate Dean for Strategic Initiatives, Washington University School of Law Jerry Organ, Professor, University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota) Gail Richmond, Professor Emeritus, Nova Southeastern University School of Law David Santacroce, Associate Dean for Experiential Education, University of Michigan School of Law Leonard P. Strickman, Professor, Florida International University School of Law

January 12, 2015 Scott F. Norberg Accreditation Project Director for Data Policy and Collection American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar 321 North Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654-7958 Dear Scott, We are writing on behalf of the NALP Board of Directors to provide comments on Possible Revisions to the 2015 Employment Questionnaire Relating to Law School Funded Positions as described in your memorandum of December 18, 2014. Of the options outlined in your memorandum, NALP believes that the ABA Data Policy Committee should adopt option number 4 that is to collect information about law school funded jobs in the same way that NALP does. Our methodology has allowed us to collect and report fairly comprehensive data on the use of law school funding for postgraduate employment at both the aggregate level and on a school-specific level in the individual school reports we return to each law school. Since law schools are already tracking the data in this way, it allows for easy implementation and will reduce the burden on law schools to track employment outcomes data in more than one way. NALP excludes long term jobs of indefinite duration from the school-funded data collection and analysis. Our instrument only collects school-funded information if the job is of fixed duration (which would include virtually all bridge-to-practice fellowships), whether that fixed duration is technically long-term or short-term under the ABA definitions of those categories. It specifically excludes jobs that are long-term and of indefinite duration jobs in the career services office, admissions office, development office, or the general counsel s office, for example. Each of the other options outlined in your memo is faulty in at least one significant way. Some are problematic on multiple practical levels, and would require schools to actually mischaracterize data. Some of the options would also fly in the face of the Section s stated goal of transparency. In light of the fact that NALP has vetted its

approach as an effective method for the collection of this data over time, we would strongly recommend that, if the Section were to pursue one of these options, number 4 would be the most transparent way to present accurate consumer information. NALP research confirms that it is difficult to generalize about bridge-to-practice programs across schools. While many current programs were developed in response to the impact of the recession on the entrylevel legal job market, others predate the recession by a considerable time (Harvard, Yale and Columbia all have longstanding fellowship programs for instance). Some schools require that fellowship placements be with public interest organizations or government, while others allow virtually any placement in fact the lion s share of these jobs are with government or public interest organizations (just about 75%) but some are with private sector employers including some law firms. Some schools with funded fellowship programs have only a very small number each year most schools that host programs report less than 10 while others have over a hundred. Some schools have little contact with fellowship fund recipients once they leave campus, while others have regular ongoing contact. Also, some schools establish an expectation that fellowship fund recipients will complete the full term of the fellowship, while others create the opposite expectation, encouraging students to leave as soon as they can find a more permanent job. Similarly, monthly stipend amounts range from $400 a month to nearly $4,000 a month, with some schools paying stipends or salaries commensurate with professional jobs in law firms or other professional service firms. It is this variation in the contours of these programs that renders each of the options other than Option 4 problematic. (See NALP s Bridge-to-Practice Program Survey Findings, and also the relevant section from the Jobs & JDs report for the Class of 2013, both attached.) In summary we would urge the committee to adopt the NALP methodology for collecting and reporting data on school-funded jobs, and we would be happy to be of any assistance we can in operationalizing this methodology. If we can answer questions or provide any additional information that would be helpful to you or the committee, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Terrence J. Galligan President James G. Leipold Executive Director

Bridge-to-Practice Program Survey Findings for the Class of 2012 Introduction NALP conducted its second survey of law school bridge-topractice programs in Fall 2013 to collect information about these programs and employment outcomes for the Class of 2012. In contrast to the first survey on this topic, which focused primarily on the structure, size, and funding of the programs as implemented for the Class of 2011, the survey for the Class of 2012 focused mainly on employment outcomes for fellows, both as of February 15, 2013 and as of August 15, 2013. Surprisingly, although law schools continue to commit significant resources to these programs, many law schools are not tracking post-fellowship employment outcomes with any rigor, making it hard to assess the ultimate effectiveness of these programs. Bridge-to-practice programs are designed to provide recent law school graduates with an opportunity to develop and enhance their practical legal skills as they transition into the practice of law, generally by providing funding of some sort for a period of post-graduate work performed for a third party (e.g., public interest organization, government agency, member of the judiciary, or private employer). Generally, jobs working for the graduate s law school (most commonly as a research assistant) do not rise to the level of bridge-to-practice fellowships. Exceptions include, for example, being paid for a job in one of the law school s legal clinics or in the office of the general counsel. characterized their school as being in a metropolitan area with a population of 100,000 999,999. Consistent with the earlier survey, 27% of the programs date from 2007 or earlier; 11% started for the Class of 2008; 50% date from either 2009 or 2010, and the remaining 11% started in either 2011 or 2012. Of the respondents who did not have a program in place for the Class of 2012, the vast majority (87%) have never had a program; a few either discontinued the program prior to 2012 or implemented the program for the Class of 2013. Additional commentary on this question indicated that cost or lack of funding was a factor in discontinuing the program. One school reported that, instead of having a program specific to its school, they worked with the state bar to start a state-wide program. One school that had a program for 2012 graduates expects that it will not be able to fund a program for 2013. Findings about 2012 Programs Fellowships are most often for 6 months or less, as shown in Table 1. Table 1. Duration of Fellowships A total of 94 schools responded to the survey, representing all U.S. NALP regions, a range of sizes, and both public and private schools. Of these, 45, or 48%, reported having a bridgeto-practice program, as defined for this survey. It is likely that this percentage is not typical of the entire school population, however, as schools without such a program may have been less likely to participate in the survey even though the survey was designed to be applicable to all schools. It is also the case that the reported bridge-to-practice programs are more common among schools with 750 or more JD students and at private schools. For example, over half the schools with a bridge-to-practice program that responded to the survey have 750 or more students, and 60% are private schools. Almost two-thirds of schools with a bridge-to-practice program also characterized their school as being in a metropolitan area with a population of one million or more, and an additional 27% 3 months or less 37.8% 4-6 months 35.6 7-9 months 6.7 One year 6.7 Various/not preset 13.3 Over half (51%) of programs provide part-time opportunities; just over one-third offer full-time opportunities; and for 13% of the programs the split is about even between the two. As the following comments suggest, some schools provided flexibility on these terms, whereas other schools had a more NALP 2013 1

defined set of full-time and part-time fellowships. (Some comments have been edited slightly for clarity.) We provided graduates a small stipend to work about 200 hours. It was up to the graduate to use the money as quickly or as slowly as they wished. Fellows worked a maximum of 200 hours in total. Hours had the potential to be spread over 6 months but most were completed in 3 months. We did not have a set time... Most lasted 3 months, but some stretched into the 4-6 month period. We required a minimum number of hours, but encouraged grads to work more to get more benefit from the program. We did not track those excess hours many employers required grads to do more than the minimum we required. Fellows must complete 200 hours of service and may coordinate their schedule with the employer. Four fellows worked full-time under one type of fellowship; 28 fellows worked between 15 and 30 hours a week under another fellowship. Most of our bridge-to-practice positions were part-time (20 hours/week) judicial fellow positions for terms up to a maximum of 480 hours (about 6 months). In the end, we added a small number of 20 hour per week 3-month judicial fellow positions. We also funded a full-time fellow position with the Native American Rights Fund, which was for a term of about 3 months. Finally, we offered a corporate fellow position where we funded a grad to work full-time in a corporate legal department for about 8 weeks in the fall. Stipends About three-quarters of programs pay a stipend; about one-third pay an hourly wage, with some overlap because a few programs use both types of payments. Reported hourly wages, reported for 14 programs, ranged from $10 to $20 per hour, with a median of $15 per hour. Stipend amounts covered a wide range with a median of $1,175 per month as shown in Table 2 below. These figures include stipends for both part-time and full-time work. Table 2. Monthly Stipends Range of stipend amounts $400 3,750 Median amount $1,175 Average amount $1,594 Distribution (% of stipend amounts in each range)* $800 or less 9.4% $1,000 37.5% $1,100-1,800 25.0% $2,000-3,750 28.1% # of stipend amounts reported 32 * The ranges in the distribution portion of the table are not adjacent because the ranges are based on reported stipend amounts. Most programs 77% allow fellows to hold an additional part-time job during the fellowship. Commentary clarified that the part-time work was generally limited to a non-legal position. One school noted that additional earning was limited to $7,000 per quarter. Just over one-quarter of programs offer professional development activities for fellows. Commentary on this topic suggests a variety of programs ranging from continuing meetings with counselors to receiving CLEs for professional development workshops. Several variations are described in these comments: Monthly meetings to discuss job search/professional development. Counselor assigned to recent graduates, providing career and professional development. 2

Check-ins with the counselor/director managing the program and mandatory PD sessions on negotiation skills, writing for practice, and creating professional networks. They must meet twice with our Alumni Advisor for career advising sessions and they are encouraged to attend programs designed for recent graduates to improve their skills or network. Fellows receive a wealth of benefits, including professional development workshops for which fellows receive up to 20 hours of continuing legal education credits and career development assistance in furthering the fellows career goals. We had two bridge-to-practice fellowship programs: a judicial fellowship program and a fellowship program with a local city attorney s office. Our judicial fellows were required to attend at least two professional development events (e.g., bar association, CLE, or legal community events that help build skills or connections) during the fellowship. Fellows were also required to meet with the dean of the law school and to attend a judicial networking reception. There is an intensive training of the grads to represent pro se litigants in housing court. The grads are covered under a practice order that allows them to represent clients. The school does not offer any professional development activities, but the host employers do. Funding Levels Total funding for the Class of 2012 ranged from $5,000 to over $1M per school, funding anywhere from a handful of fellows to over 100, with an average of 35 and a median of 32 fellows per school. Based on 42 schools reporting both the total number of fellows and funding levels, per capita amounts ranged from $1,425 to over $30,000. See Tables 3 and 4 below. Table 3. Total Funding for the Class of 2012 (per school) Range of funding $5,000 1,060,000 25th percentile $70,000 Median $186,600 75th percentile $300,000 Average $234,000 Table 4. Per Capita Funding for the Class of 2012 Range of funding $1,425 34,210 25th percentile $3,100 Median $4,950 75th percentile $8,820 Average $7,405 Note: Figures have been rounded to the nearest $10. In comparing funding levels for 2012 with those for 2011, 43% of schools reported that funding had remained about the same; the remaining schools were about evenly split between those reporting an increase and those reporting a decrease. Among schools where funding decreased, the most commonly cited reason, cited by two-thirds of schools, was that there was less need for funding; one-third cited budget constraints; in just one instance lack of program effectiveness was noted. Consistent with the first survey, almost three-quarters of schools require some kind of report back from their fellows. Commentary suggests that the reporting 3

requirements are largely in line with what was reported on the first survey. For example, many schools require fellows to meet with their career counselor on a regular basis and to submit reports regularly, either in writing or via telephone. A report on job search activities may be required as part of the report. Some schools require timesheets signed by the supervising attorney. Some schools noted that they survey fellows at the end of their fellowship. A few schools spoke to changes in the reporting procedures. These comments capture the range of practices that schools reported: It has evolved to require graduates to create a personalized employment search plan at the beginning of every 3-month bridge fellowship, then report on progress toward that plan monthly, and then have a final exit interview. It has significantly evolved grads have to submit a monthly log, as well as a report about their job search progress. They also have to complete a post-bridge survey, which gives us information about whether fellowships led to full-time work, the benefits, etc. At the conclusion of the fellowship, each fellow was required to submit a one- to two-page written report indicating which two professional development events were attended and describing: (1) the type of work performed during the fellowship, (2) how the fellowship benefited the fellow s career, (3) what skills the fellow developed or honed during the fellowship, and (4) any feedback for the law school on the fellowship program or observations about the value of the program to the school or the community. At least one substantial writing sample is written by the fellow during the course of the fellowship. Placements and Employment Outcomes A total of 40 schools reported on the placements of their 2012 fellows. Placements continue to be heavily, but not exclusively, with government and public interest organizations, as shown in Table 5 below. Note that not all programs fund positions in all sectors. For example, about one-quarter of schools each indicated that funding does not cover in-house positions or positions in law firms. A few schools did not fund judicial clerkships. Table 5. Employer/Job Types for Class of 2012 Fellows Employer/Job Type % of Total Government 31.4% Public interest 44.0 Judicial clerk 11.3 Law firm 9.1 Corporate in-house* 1.1 Other** 3.1 Total number of fellows 1,435 * Includes in-house at hospitals. ** Others described include law school legal clinic, law school in-house, nonprofits and nonprofit foundation, international NGO, and international tribunal. Fellows are required to have two counseling appointments, either in person or via phone, with their career counselor during their fellowship. They are also required to report on their job search via bi-weekly surveys, as well as to report permanent employment. The bi-weekly surveys were added this year. A total of 35 schools reported on the status of some or all of their fellows as of February 15, 2013, the as of date for both NALP s graduate employment survey and reporting to the ABA. At that time 45% of fellows were still in their fellowship, and 24% were employed full-time long-term either with their fellowship employer or in a related position but with a different employer. See Table 6. 4

Table 6. Employment Outcomes for Class of 2012 Fellows as of February 15, 2013 Still in fellowship 45.5% Employed with fellowship employer in a full-time long-term job 9.4 Employed in a related field in a full-time long-term job but not with the fellowship employer 14.5 Employed with the fellowship employer or in a related field on a short-term basis 3.5 Employed with other employer any terms 14.8 Pursuing LLM or other advanced studies full-time 0.3 Not employed 9.4 Status unknown 2.6 Number of fellows 1,212 Note: Related means that there is a connection or similarity between the kind of work done or subject matter expertise in the fellowship and the new job. A total of 30 schools reported on the status of some or all of their fellows as of August 15, 2013, or about 15 months after a May graduation. (These figures do not include schools that reported that the status of all of their fellows was unknown.) At that point, about 42% of fellows were employed full-time long-term either with their fellowship employer or in a related position. However, in these 30 schools, the status of one-quarter of the fellows was not known. See Table 7. Compared with the total number of fellows reported by 40 schools 1,435 the status of almost half of them (46%) was not known as of August 15, 2013. Table 7. Employment Outcomes for Class of 2012 Fellows as of August 15, 2013 Still in fellowship 8.1% Employed with fellowship employer in a full-time long-term job 12.5 Employed in a related field in a full-time long-term job but not with the fellowship employer 29.6 Employed with the fellowship employer or in a related field on a short-term basis 1.7 Employed with other employer any terms 18.5 Pursuing LLM or other advanced studies full-time 0.4 Not employed 3.2 Status unknown 26.0 Number of fellows 1,051 5

Fixed Duration Jobs Funded by Law Schools Since 2011, additional information has been collected to determine, for jobs of fixed duration, whether the job was funded by the law school or an outside grant. Although law school funded jobs may be long-term (defined as lasting at least a year) they do not include jobs of an indefinite duration, such as in admissions or the career services office, that may have been taken by graduates. All told, about 1,700 law-school funded jobs were reported, accounting for 4.5% of the jobs taken by this class, an increase of over 100 jobs compared with the Class of 2012. In addition, the jobs were more likely to be full-time and last a year. As shown below, 30% of these jobs were both short-term and part-time, compared with 42% for the Class of 2012. Over 77% of the jobs were reported as bar passage required, and most of these were full-time and lasting a year. The most common employment setting for these jobs were with public interest organizations (43%), government (23%), and academia (21%). Looking at more narrowly defined employment and job settings, the two largest were legal services and law school research assistant/fellow positions, accounting for 19% and 17% of jobs, respectively, and in the case of research assistants the majority of jobs, 61%, were both short-term and part-time. Summary of Job Characteristics Percentages are based on 1,701 fixed duration jobs reported as funded by law schools. Long-term jobs last at least a year but are of a fixed duration. Job Types and Duration Law School Funded Positions Type of Job % of Total Bar passage required full-time-total... 59.3% Bar passage required full-time, short-term... 15.6 Bar passage required part-time-total... 17.9 Bar passage required part-time, short-term... 16.3 JD Advantage full-time-total... 8.8 JD Advantage full-time, short term... 4.2 JD Advantage part-time-total... 13.6 JD Advantage part-time, short-term... 13.2 Figures are based on 1,701 jobs reported as funded by the law school, jobs that are defined as being of fixed duration of less than a year (short-term), or of a year or more (long-term) but also of a fixed duration. A few jobs were reported as other professional or non-professional. Thus percentages for full- and part-time jobs by type do not add to 100. Jobs & JD s, Class of 2013, 2014 NALP 21

Looking at the prevalence of law-school funded jobs compared with the overall number of bar passage required and JD Advantage jobs shows that 4.6% of all bar passage required jobs were law-school funded, as were 6.2% of all JD Advantage jobs. The figures are about half in academic settings, and 30% and 19%, respectively, in public interest settings. Bar passage required jobs and JD Advantage taken by women, minorities, and younger graduates are more likely to be funded by the law school than are such jobs taken by non-minorities, men, and older graduates. Employer Types Law School Funded Positions Employer Type # of Jobs Reported % of Total Short-term, Part-time Jobs as a % of All Law School Funded Jobs in This Sector Academic... 355 20.9% 55.5% Research Assistant/Fellow... 289 17.0 60.6 Government... 398 23.4 19.4 State or Local Prosecution... 99 5.8 20.2 Public Interest... 728 42.8 26.9 Policy/Advocacy... 178 10.5 16.3 Legal Services... 329 19.3 37.7 Public Defender... 79 4.6 20.3 Business... 35 2.1 37.1 Judicial Clerkships... 81 4.8 22.2 Law Firms... 103 6.1 7.8 Note: Total percentages are based on 1,701 jobs reported as funded by the law school. Employer type was not reported for a few jobs; hence percentages do not add to 100. Law School Funding for Jobs Comparison by Demographics Demographic Group % of All Bar Passage Required Jobs Taken by This Group That Were Law School Funded % of All JD Advantage Jobs Taken by This Group That Were Law School Funded Men... 3.9% 5.2% Women... 5.3 7.4 Minorities*... 6.4 6.6 Non-minorities... 3.7 5.3 Age 30 or younger at graduation... 4.5 6.3 Age 31+ at graduation... 3.1 5.8 Note: All figures are based on graduates for whom the appropriate demographic information was also reported. * Refers to race/ethnicity and includes all graduates who reported a race other than White/Caucasian. 22 Jobs & JD s, Class of 2013, 2014 NALP

Information collected on stipends shows that stipend amounts varied widely, as the table at the bottom of the page shows. Law School Funding for Jobs Comparison by Job Type and Employment Sector Employment Sector % of All Bar Passage Jobs Taken in This Sector Funded by Law School % of All JD Advantage Jobs Taken in This Sector Funded by Law School Overall... 4.6% 6.2% Academic... 55.3 45.2 Business... 1.5 0.2 Judicial Clerkships... 2.4 Government... 11.9 3.1 Private Practice... 0.6 0.3 Public Interest... 30.2 19.4 Stipends Reported for Law School Funded Positions PERCENTILE 25th Median 75th 90% of Reported Stipends Fell in the Range: Mean Stipend # of Stipends Reported Full-time jobs Amount per month... $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $1,000-2,405 1,616 289 Amount per project... 3,000 6,000 30,000 3,000-30,000 11,830 93 Part-time jobs Amount per month... 840 1,000 1,200 500-2,000 1,071 85 Amount per project... 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000-6,000 3,734 109 Amount per week... 200 225 300 200-475 258 20 Note: Figures are based on stipends for which the payment period (per month or week) was also reported. Jobs & JD s, Class of 2013, 2014 NALP 23

GRADUATE SURVEY FORM CLASS OF 2014 NALP EMPLOYMENT REPORT AND SALARY SURVEY Please refer to the Frequently Asked Questions sheet as you are completing this survey. Name Phone Permanent Address E-mail I. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION A. PROGRAM TYPE AT TIME OF GRADUATION Full-time/3-Year Part-time/Evening B. AGE (Complete either B1 or B2) B1. Age at Graduation B2. Birth Date Mo Day Yr C. GENDER IDENTITY C1. Male Female I do not identify as Male or Female C2. I identify as transgender D. SEXUAL ORIENTATION Heterosexual Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Other E. RACE/ETHNICITY (You may check up to two) Hispanic/Latino Black/African American Asian Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaska Native White/Caucasian F. DISABILITY No Yes (describe) II. POST GRADUATE EMPLOYMENT STATUS A1. Select only one of the following to describe your post-graduate status: Employed in a position for which you receive a salary or a stipend or are being paid on a contract or retainer basis (also complete the items in sections A3 and B) Enrolled in a full-time degree or certificate program Not employed start date deferred (also complete items A2 and 7; the rest of the form is not applicable) Not employed and seeking work/paid position (also complete item A2; the rest of the form is not applicable) Not employed and not seeking work/paid position (also complete item A2; the rest of the form is not applicable) A2. If you are not employed, are you volunteering? Yes, in a law-related capacity Yes, not in a law-related capacity No A3. Job Information 1. Type of Job (choose one only) Bar admission required/anticipated (includes judicial clerks) JD advantage Other professional position (describe) Non-professional position (describe) 2. Job is: (check only one) Full-time Part-time 3. Job pays: A salary of $ per year 4. Indicate whether the employer hired you on a short-term or longterm basis. Note that a long-term job from the employer s perspective may be one that you consider short-term, while, for example, you continue to seek a different job. Please indicate the type of job from the employer s perspective. Job is long-term (1 year or more specify duration below) Job has a known or fixed duration, e.g., 1 year, 2 years, or project-based Job does not have a known end-point Job is short-term (duration is fixed at less than a year) Special funding: If your job has a fixed duration, whether short-term (e.g. less than 1 year) or long-term (e.g. 1 or 2 years), please indicate if the job is funded in either of the following ways: The job is funded in whole or in part by a grant from an outside organization, e.g., Skadden Fellowship, Equal Justice Works Describe: The job is funded in whole or in part by my law school 5. Indicate whether you are seeking a job other than the one described here I continue to seek a job other than that described here I am not seeking a job other than that described here 6. Timing of offer (mark one) Before graduation After graduation but before bar results After bar results 7. Date on which you started or will start your job Mo Day Yr 8. Source of Job: Mark the one choice that best describes how you learned of and made initial contact with the employer. If you received an offer from your summer employer, or the employer for whom you worked during law school, indicate how you initially made contact with that employer. Interviewed during fall OCI program organized by the career services office Interviewed during spring OCI program organized by the career services office Returned to or continued with pre-law school employer Interviewed at job fair or consortia Responded to job posting in career services print or online posting/bulletin/jobline/binder/direct contact listing or utilized its résumé referral service Referral by business colleague, friend, relative, alumni, or school personnel Responded to job posting, either in print (e.g., classified ad) or in a commercial or non-profit job site such as Monster, Oscar, PSJD, USAJobs, etc. Initiated contact by means of a targeted mailing or informational interviewing, or as a result of networking Used a temporary placement agency or legal search consultant Started own practice or business Other (describe) A stipend of $ (choose one) per week per month per project

B. EMPLOYER INFORMATION NAME AND ADDRESS OF EMPLOYER Name Street City State Zip COMPLETE B1, B2, AND B3 ONLY IF YOUR PRIMARY JOB IS IN LAW FIRM PRIVATE PRACTICE. IF NOT, SKIP TO B4/B5, B6/B7, B8 or B9/B10 AS APPROPRIATE. IF YOU ARE EMPLOYED BY A LEGAL TEMPORARY AGENCY, SKIP TO B4 AND B5 (BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY) REGARDLESS OF THE EMPLOYER AT WHICH THE AGENCY HAS PLACED YOU. B1. TOTAL SIZE OF LAW FIRM (Mark only one for size of entire firm by total number of attorneys) Solo (you have started your own law firm as a solo practitioner) 2-10 attorneys 11-25 attorneys 26-50 attorneys 51-100 attorneys 101-250 attorneys 251-500 attorneys 501+ attorneys B2. Firm is a public interest law firm (check if applicable) B3. TYPE OF LAW FIRM JOB (mark one only.) Associate (partnership track) Staff attorney (non-partnership track) Law clerk Paralegal Administrator or other non-attorney position IF JOB IS IN BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY, COMPLETE BOTH B4 AND B5. B4. TYPE OF EMPLOYER Legal temporary agency Accounting firm Investment banking or financial institution Entertainment/sports management company Insurance company Management consulting firm Publishing house Legal process outsourcer (LPO) Legal/law-related technology company Other technology/e-commerce company Trade association or political campaign Other business or industry (describe) B5. TYPE OF JOB Temporary attorney work Temporary law clerk or paralegal work Compliance In-house legal Management Business development/sales/marketing Consulting Self-employed Other (describe) IF JOB IS IN GOVERNMENT, COMPLETE BOTH B6 AND B7. B6. LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT Federal State Local (city/municipal/county) Other (describe) B7. TYPE OF JOB Judicial Clerkship Judicial other (non-clerkship, e.g., staff attorney) Military JAG Corps (any service) Other military position (uniformed or civilian) Prosecutor Agency Honors program Other administrative or executive branch agency position Legislative (e.g., legislative assistant) Other (describe) B8. IF JOB IS IN A PUBLIC INTEREST ORGANIZATION OR OTHER NONPROFIT (Mark one item that best describes the primary type of work or job you will be handling) Community education and organization Civil legal services Policy/advocacy Public defender or appellate defender Other (describe) IF JOB IS IN ACADEMIA/EDUCATION COMPLETE BOTH B9 AND B10 B9. Type of Employer Law School College or university Elementary or secondary school Other (describe) B10. Type of Job Faculty/teacher Administrator Research assistant/fellow or other temporary position III. SECOND JOB INFORMATION (Complete only if you have a job concurrent with that reported above.) NAME AND ADDRESS OF EMPLOYER Name Street City State Zip A1. TYPE OF JOB (check only one) Bar admission required/anticipated (includes judicial clerks) JD preferred Other professional position (describe) Other non-professional position (describe) A2. JOB IS: (check only one) Full-time Part-time A3. EMPLOYER TYPE (Mark one only) Law firm private practice Business/Industry Government Judicial clerkship Public interest Academic OTHER REMARKS