Posted by Einer Elhauge, guest-blogging:
The Exploding Laterals Law School Market.    
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_05_20-2007_05_26.shtml#1179779013


   What accounts for the explosion in the law school market for making
   lateral hires from other law schools? Law schools have long attempted
   to hire legal scholars from other schools. But the degree of
   competition for top laterals has become remarkable.

   One indication is the huge number of law professors who will be
   visiting top law schools as reported in [1]Leiter�s Law Reports: 103,
   including Harvard (46), Stanford (4), Chicago (14), Columbia (20), NYU
   (19). Such visits are typically used to look over professors for a
   possible lateral offers, and clearly that is what is going on for a
   large number of persons on this list. The number of lateral visitors
   Harvard Law School will have next year will be double what the size of
   the whole faculty was in the 1950s.

   Some of this will turn out to be professorial flirting, but a lot of
   these visits will result in actual lateral offers and moves. Consider
   the large, and highly prominent, set of laterals that have accepted
   offers from Harvard Law School during Dean Kagan's four year Kagan
   deanship: Noah Feldman, Jody Freeman, Jack Goldsmith, Daryl Levinson,
   Bruce Mann, John Manning, Gerald Neuman, Robert Sitkoff (just
   yesterday), Kathy Spier, George Triantis, Mark Tushnet, and Adrian
   Vermeule.

   And the full returns are not even in yet on past visits, for Harvard
   still has outstanding offers out to: Yochai Benkler, Richard Ford,
   Pamela Karlan, Michael Klarman, Martha Nussbaum, Robert Post, William
   Rubenstein, Seana Shiffrin, Reva Siegel, Henry Smith, and Cass
   Sunstein. If even six out of these eleven outstanding offers are
   consummated, it will mean the addition of a total of 18 laterals, a
   remarkably sharp transformation of the school in a very short time.

   What accounts for this explosion in competition for laterals? One
   might think the phenomenon is unique to Harvard. But the long list of
   visitors at top law schools indicates it is a more universal
   phenomenon. Still, there is a Harvard-centric theory. Namely, the
   Kagan deanship ended a certain amount of constipation in the Harvard
   laterals hiring process, and once Harvard started to aggressively
   pursue laterals, other law schools had to do so to keep up with the
   competition.

   I think there is a certain amount of truth this. One individual can
   often make a remarkable difference, and Dean Kagan appears to have
   done so. But this explanation does beg the question: why didn�t other
   law schools choose to compete by instead focusing more on the entry
   level market? There the level of hiring seems largely unchanged.

   Other factors have also surely contributed to the current laterals
   frenzy. The large run up in the stock market last decade made donors
   and law schools relatively well-off, giving them the funds to pursue
   scholars and smaller class sizes. The revival of New York City by
   Guiliani made NYU and Columbia much more attractive places and helped
   them compete for top scholars. And all the top law schools have in
   recent years had deans who are young, smart, ambitious, and
   aggressive. But all these factors still fail to quite explain why
   these well-funded, more attractive schools with ambitious deans choose
   to focus more on laterals than on entry-levels, especially given that
   entry-levels do not require expensive visits and are generally easier
   to land because they are less likely to require a family-disrupting
   move.

   I think the answer is related to a trend I mentioned yesterday: the
   death of doctrinalism. That death caused the entry level market to
   largely shift its focus to JD/PhDs as the set of persons who could, at
   the entry level, most plausibly offer demonstrable proof of their
   ability to engage in the sort of serious interdisciplinary work that
   modern law schools now require. But there is a relatively small set of
   such JD/PhDs to chase, so this strategy does not offer many
   opportunities for expansion. And it misses the large set of talented
   potential legal scholars who do not get PhDs.

   One reaction to this limited pool has been to create fellowships to
   train JDs to do interdisciplinary work before they hit the entry level
   market. But this is a relatively new phenomenon and has not yet
   created a sufficient number of serious interdisciplinary entry level
   candidates to meet demand.

   So the complementary alternative has been to use the laterals market
   to focus on those scholars who have proven their ability to do
   interdisciplinary work as professors elsewhere. We�re often not sure
   which entry level candidates will turn out to be able to do such work,
   because many of them have not been given much of an opportunity to do
   so. But once they demonstrate such an ability in their scholarship,
   then the top law schools are all over them.

   This explanation is consistent with the pattern of PhD hiring at the
   entry and lateral levels. For example, 6 out of 7 of Harvard�s recent
   entry-level hires have (or will soon get) PhDs, and the one who does
   not was a quasi-lateral, having been a visiting professor here for two
   years first. In contrast, 9 of Harvard�s 12 recent lateral hires have
   no PhD. I can attest that this pattern was not the product of any
   conscious design: it simply reflects which sorts of candidates seemed
   attractive.

   Another trend that is consistent with this explanation is that lateral
   visits are now increasingly focusing on laterals much earlier in their
   career, often after they have been professors elsewhere for only a few
   years. This is a big change from the old model, where lateral offers
   generally focused only on fairly senior scholars who were the
   established leaders of their field. This shift makes sense if the
   shift to laterals reflects some substitution away from entry level
   hires because of the limited number of JD/PhDs, toward other young
   candidates who have demonstrated their ability to do interdisciplinary
   scholarship at another school. Look for more of the same in future,
   with some lessening of focus on laterals as fellowship programs expand
   to meet the demand for entry level candidates who can do
   interdisciplinary work without necessarily having PhDs.

References

   1. http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to