Yesterday I submitted the following open letter to the leadership of the International Law Section (ILS) of the American Bar Association (ABA). I note that it is not possible for law professors at ABA-accredited schools not to be members of the ABA; the schools pay for group memberships, on top of hefty accreditation fees. At present, the ABA is empowered with government-sanctioned accreditation authority over legal education in the United States.
To the leadership of the International Law Section of the American Bar Association.
$895, the registration fee for academics for the ILS annual, is beyond the pale. I note that I might not have been able to go this year anyway, because of a conflict. But I write because this is a persistent problem. Last year I complained about the fee, which I think was $795. I was told I was heard. Apparently heard and dismissed.
Ten years ago, I registered for the ABA ILS for $295. That's a cumulative inflation rate of 203%. The U.S. 10-year inflation rate generally is about 25%.
The ABA must think that all academics are the same. So let me be plain. My annual salary, after about 30 years in academics and holding the highest academic rank on my public-sector faculty is about $193,000. My budget for professional development is $5,000 this year. It was $5,000 10 years ago. It was $5,000 15 years ago. Every year, working in public service, I must do more with less. As that's impossible, that means dipping deeper into my own pockets, which are not getting deeper fast enough to keep up with the ABA.
The starting salary, with no experience, for a law professor in the Boston market ranges from $185,000 to $213,000. The high end of the law-school teaching scale in the market comes in at about double what I make. (Salary.com.) I don't know what the benefits are, but I bet they've grown faster than mine.
I speak of my own experience here, because that is what I know. But to be fair, I make decent money, relative to the American labor market. I know that and try not to take it for granted. What is more worrisome about ABA's economic exclusion is its impact on both new and practicing lawyers who have committed their labors to public service.
The ABA sends the unequivocal message that persons in public service are not welcome in ILS--that internationalism in law is only for the well off, or worse, that professional association per se, beyond compulsory licensing, is only for the well off. My students graduating in public service careers--NGO registration fees are the same as academic--will be lucky to start out at a third of my pay and might not reach my pay in the course of a career.
Accordingly, I have, for some time, stopped advising students to join ABA. Now I will advise them affirmatively not to waste their time and money. I steadfastly sang the praises of ABA membership for more than 25 years, including 10 years on the TIPS Task Force on Outreach to Law Students. The most important advantage of ABA for me and for new lawyers, I long asserted, was conference programming and networking. I see that the ABA now intends those benefits to be exclusive to big money makers in the private sector.
Yesterday I participated in an ILS committee meeting. You will hear soon from that committee that no one volunteered to move into any leadership role beginning next year. No one includes me.
Sincere farewell,
Rick Peltz-Steele
No comments:
Post a Comment