Fall 1983 – Issue 30 - Stanford Lawyer - Stanford University

CAREER 'ALTERNATIVES' (cant.)2. A suggestion made at those meetings was thatthe faculty somehow idealizes for the students thelife of the large-firm corporate lawyer. If you thinkabout it you will soon recognize that that claim is atleast exaggerated, given that those of us on thefaculty obviously have chosen a different life. Well,then, students sometimes continue, the faculty is insufficientlyopen about its own moral values, and byits silence implicitly endorses the common corporatelaw career path as the only one worth considering.Actually, most of us do think it's a path worth considering,given that most graduates of Stanford andother law schools follow it and most, though not all,report satisfaction with their choice. But the only oneworth thinking about? Certainly we don't think that,and I suspect that what must be happening is thatas teachers we are very skittish about even suggestinghow we think you should spend your lives. Weare not spiritual advisers or preachers, and I certainlyhave no inclination to suggest to the faculty thatthat is what they should become.It is the case, however, that in addition to theacademic life which we now share, a large numberof the members of our faculty and staff have bothpast professional and present advisory affiliationswith various sorts of government agencies and other"public interest"-type organizations. (Some alsohave backgrounds in business law, of course; manyhave the sort of "mixed" background that often getsoverlooked in discussions like this but may in fact bethe most satisfying of all.) I think you will find ushappy to discuss our experiences - not all of whichhave been unequivocably favorable (or we wouldn'tbe here) - should you come to us with questions.To this end, I am attaching to this memorandum alist prepared and distributed by our PlacementOffice last month, entitled "Stanford Law SchoolFaculty/Staff Public Interest/Public Service Background."[Interested readers may obtain a copy ofthis list from the Placement Office, (415) 497-3925.]Again, no one is trying to steer you anywhere, butdo be aware that there are resources here to helpacquaint you with the range of alternatives.3. Students sometimes assert that during their firstterm courses, the discussions are conducted andthe hypothetical cases are set so as to assume acorporate law firm environment. As I think aboutsubjects taught in the first term, I have some troubleimagining how this can be so. In any event, I am bythis memorandum requesting the Curriculum Committeeto consider working into the first week of thefirst term - the Introduction to Law and Legal Institutionsprogram - instruction on the wide rangeof careers and activities that are open to those withlegal training. Again, we are not trying to steer anybody,but rather to be neutral, in this case to ac-quaint our students at the outset with the fact thatindeed there is legal life beyond the corporate lawfirm, and that life in such firms can itself be craftedso as to incorporate a rich and satisfying mix.4. Finally, and perhaps most tangibly, I am instituting- out of the Richard E. Lang Dean's DiscretionaryAccount and with the earmarked assistanceof other interested donors - a three-year experimentalloan program, whereby up to ten studentsper summer working in law-related jobs for governmentagencies or tax-exempt non-profit organizationswill be able to borrow up to $3500 ($2000for summer living expenses and $1500 to satisfy thestudent's expected contribution to school year expensesfrom summer earnings). Interest will be at 9percent, which we anticipate will be near the marketinterest rate when the money is lent. It will beginaccruing immediately, but the first payment will notbe due until six months after graduation. For the firsttwo years after graduation, only interest will be due.In the third, fourth, and fifth years after graduation,the borrowers shall pay one-third of the outstandingprincipal as well as accrued interest. (It should beclear that we are not hereby providing a financial incentivefor summer employment in a non-large-firmsetting. One whose principal considerations regardingsummer employment are financial would bequite ill-advised to take advantage of this program.The point instead is to help remove an existing disincentive,growing out of the need to put oneselfthrough school, to students' using one of their twosummers as a way of gaining exposure to some"alternative" form of law practice.)Obviously such a loan will have the effect of placingthe student involved, perhaps already significantlyin debt, into further debt. That is why seriousrepayment obligations are not incurred until threeyears after graduation, at which point most graduateswill be quite gainfully employed. To remove thepossible disincentive to the post-graduate acceptanceof low-paying, "alternative" employment whichthe program might, paradoxically, create, we haveincorporated the provision that the principal paymentsshall be forgiven if, at the time any principalpayment is due - that is, in the third, fourth, or fifthyear after graduation - the student is earning lessthan $27,500 (as adjusted for changes in the consumerprice index). To be eligible for loan forgiveness,the former student must be working full time ina law-related job. (Again, the financial inducementshere are plainly too small to draw anyone into"alternative" work because of the money. That is notour intention. Instead, by this forgiveness provisionwe have tried to remove the possibility that the student,by borrowing money in order to sample somethingdifferent during one of his or her summers, willhave created an additional financial disincentive tofurther pursuit of such "alternative" work.)54Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983