Speaking as a consumer, not a lawyer, who follows many of these legal blogs (out of some twisted curiosity) I can assure you that average consumers *do* care a great deal… the prestige of the law school you did or didn’t attend has a direct reflection, warranted or not, on your abilities as a lawyer.

Consumers look for that diploma when they enter your office, and they glance to see where it’s from. It might not be a deal maker or breaker, but they definitely notice.

Speaking as a consumer, not a lawyer, who follows many of these legal blogs (out of some twisted curiosity) I can assure you that average consumers *do* care a great deal… the prestige of the law school you did or didn’t attend has a direct reflection, warranted or not, on your abilities as a lawyer.

Consumers look for that diploma when they enter your office, and they glance to see where it’s from. It might not be a deal maker or breaker, but they definitely notice.

Sorry about your lost Comment, Sherry — wish I could have seen it. I had no idea that an e-mail address is absolutely required, but I’m not sure if I want to ditch that requirement. I’d suggest putting in a fake e-mail address — make sure it has an @ (and make up the domain name, if that would make you feel more comfortable.

As to the law school disclosure issue, it seems to me that the consumer often has very few (if any) pieces of information when starting to look for a lawyer, and that the law school attended is a lot more relevant than most other types of information that are likely to be readily available about each lawyer (and already collected by the Bar).

The consumer wants to feel comfortable with the chosen attorney on a number of levels other than the very broad notion of being “represented well in a particular matter.” And, whether lawyers like it or not, the consumer is the boss. Therefore, the consumer should get to choose which pieces of information are relevant to beginning the process of choosing a lawyer.

There may be very few consumers for whom the law school attended matters, but they should be allowed that quirk, especially since there certainly are a lot of lawyers who think it matters.

If a wife, whose spouse has just retained a divorce lawyer who went to X Law School, would prefer someone who went somewhere else, should she have to call around to law firms for the information, as opposed to making a getting online to the Bar Commission?

You give the consumer very little credit (bankruptcy joke!) if you think that he or she will misuse the information, or that each will have the same conceptions or preferences about various law schools. The law client is often buying a very expensive “package,” and the name on the diploma might indeed be a part of that package that is relevant to the client — whether the consumer is a snob or a populist.

Sorry about your lost Comment, Sherry — wish I could have seen it. I had no idea that an e-mail address is absolutely required, but I’m not sure if I want to ditch that requirement. I’d suggest putting in a fake e-mail address — make sure it has an @ (and make up the domain name, if that would make you feel more comfortable.

As to the law school disclosure issue, it seems to me that the consumer often has very few (if any) pieces of information when starting to look for a lawyer, and that the law school attended is a lot more relevant than most other types of information that are likely to be readily available about each lawyer (and already collected by the Bar).

The consumer wants to feel comfortable with the chosen attorney on a number of levels other than the very broad notion of being “represented well in a particular matter.” And, whether lawyers like it or not, the consumer is the boss. Therefore, the consumer should get to choose which pieces of information are relevant to beginning the process of choosing a lawyer.

There may be very few consumers for whom the law school attended matters, but they should be allowed that quirk, especially since there certainly are a lot of lawyers who think it matters.

If a wife, whose spouse has just retained a divorce lawyer who went to X Law School, would prefer someone who went somewhere else, should she have to call around to law firms for the information, as opposed to making a getting online to the Bar Commission?

You give the consumer very little credit (bankruptcy joke!) if you think that he or she will misuse the information, or that each will have the same conceptions or preferences about various law schools. The law client is often buying a very expensive “package,” and the name on the diploma might indeed be a part of that package that is relevant to the client — whether the consumer is a snob or a populist.

First, David, I recommend you enable your blog to accept comments from those who don’t wish to publish their email addresses. I just lost a long and better-written comment than this will be when it was not accepted for that reason.

As to the question, I wonder whether how the Utah bar association would respond to inquiries about what a particular lawyer’s zodiac sign were? It is information that might help some clients choose a lawyer who would work well with them, and it is information the Bar Association has at its fingertips, and it is info that people in the know could find out pretty easily via Martindale Hubble or something.

The easy answer is that of course the Bar Association shouldn’t hide something that is not “confidential,” that consumers want to know, and that lay people would naturally look to the Bar Association to find out. The harder part is the implication that the Bar Association is signing on to the consumer’s presumption that knowing the name on a lawyer’s diploma will tell them whether that lawyer will represent them well in a particular matter.

I don’t know what it means to be a good lawyer yet, but the best lawyers I know are smart, practical, down-to-earth, and enjoy good relationships with other attorneys. They have a great bedside manner with clients. Show me the law school that gives this to people who don’t have it, or that takes it away from people who do, and I can get excited about consumers “right to know” this information.

First, David, I recommend you enable your blog to accept comments from those who don’t wish to publish their email addresses. I just lost a long and better-written comment than this will be when it was not accepted for that reason.

As to the question, I wonder whether how the Utah bar association would respond to inquiries about what a particular lawyer’s zodiac sign were? It is information that might help some clients choose a lawyer who would work well with them, and it is information the Bar Association has at its fingertips, and it is info that people in the know could find out pretty easily via Martindale Hubble or something.

The easy answer is that of course the Bar Association shouldn’t hide something that is not “confidential,” that consumers want to know, and that lay people would naturally look to the Bar Association to find out. The harder part is the implication that the Bar Association is signing on to the consumer’s presumption that knowing the name on a lawyer’s diploma will tell them whether that lawyer will represent them well in a particular matter.

I don’t know what it means to be a good lawyer yet, but the best lawyers I know are smart, practical, down-to-earth, and enjoy good relationships with other attorneys. They have a great bedside manner with clients. Show me the law school that gives this to people who don’t have it, or that takes it away from people who do, and I can get excited about consumers “right to know” this information.