American University Law Review

Back Issues

June, 1997

LAWYER, KNOW THYSELF: A REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON ATTORNEY ATTRIBUTES BEARING ON PROFESSIONALISM*

SUSAN DAICOFF**

In the last ten to fifteen years, three related crises have emerged with respect to the legal profession: "professionalism" has declined, public opinion of attorneys and the legal profession has plummeted, and lawyer dissatisfaction and dysfunction have increased.¹ At the same time, there appears to be a perception that attorneys differ from "other people" in a variety of ways. No one has attempted to demonstrate systematically, however, whether an "attorney personality" exists, and if so, whether it is linked to these crises in the legal profession.

The approach taken by those scholars who have examined the problems in the legal profession generally involved theorizing causes and then proposing solutions. Theorized causes often focus on external, environmental changes affecting the practice of law. Proposed solutions to this "tripartite crisis" often call for a wholesale change in attorneys' values, ideals, ethics, and morals, or for attorneys to develop more humanistic, emotional, and interpersonally sensitive attributes and behavior. None of the commentators has investigated whether there are inherent "lawyer" personality characteristics or attributes contributing to these problems. Further, none has considered whether inherent "lawyer" characteristics counter efforts to solve the problems. Instead, proposed causes and solutions have been based almost exclusively on theory and personal experience, focusing on external environmental factors and overt behavior. The limited empirical research that has been conducted in the area focuses on identifying and documenting the existence of the problems.²

Before continuing the discussion on the causes of and solutions to this "tripartite crisis," the following questions should be addressed: (1) whether attorneys' characteristics, goals, values, ideals, ethics, or morals actually differ from those of the general American adult population; (2) whether these differences, if any, are responsible for the crisis; (3) whether the offending attributes are pre-existing in those who choose to come to law school or are developed in law school; and (4) whether and how those attributes can be changed in attorneys. Empirical data collected over the last forty years indicates two things: first, that lawyers differ significantly and in consistent ways from the general adult population, particularly in their decision-making approaches, in certain personality characteristics, and in their values;³ and second, that while law school does have a dramatic effect on at least some individuals, there are some consistent, pre-existing traits which are characteristic of those who choose a legal career.⁴ No data has been collected on how to change attorneys.

Attorneys appear to differ from the general population in the way that they approach problems and make decisions, what they value and respond to, and what motivates them. Some of their personality and cognitive characteristics appear to be present prior to law school, and some appear to be amplified by or inculcated in law school. These differences may explain (at least in part) why public opinion of lawyers and lawyer satisfaction are so low.⁵ They may also shed light on the causes of the decline in professionalism.

This Article demonstrates that attorneys and persons choosing to attend law school have specific empirically demonstrable personality characteristics, and that these characteristics are partially responsible for the current crisis in the legal profession. It proposes that these characteristics which have been entirely ignored in scholarly treatment of the topic, are unlikely to change.⁶ Next, this Article examines empirical research regarding attorneys and law students to determine the characteristics, traits, qualities, attitudes, motivations, values, morals, ideals, and goals (collectively, "attributes") of individuals in the legal profession. Empirical research regarding the effect of legal education will also be investigated in order to distinguish pre-existing characteristics from those that are developed in law school. Moral development of law students and lawyers will be examined separately. Finally, this Article evaluates and discusses possible causal relationships between each of the three crises in the legal profession and these attributes.⁷

I. THE TRIPARTITE CRISIS: PROFESSIONALISM, PUBLIC OPINION, AND LAWYER DISSATISFACTION

In recent years, the legal profession has become increasingly concerned with "professionalism,"⁸ as well as with the public's perception of attorneys' credibility, morality, and utility. While it is a nebulous term, "professionalism" has been used to mean several different things.⁹ First, it is often used to set apart a profession from a trade or occupation by way of characteristics such as advanced educational and licensing requirements, regulation by government or by the profession itself, and a stated commitment to public service¹⁰ for which financial remuneration is incidental.¹¹ Second, it can refer to a set of ideals with which the members of a profession conform on a voluntary basis, that are not enforceable or actionable if breached.¹² Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, dissenting in the 1988 case, Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n,¹³ stated that a profession differs from other occupations in that membership "entails an ethical obligation to temper one's selfish pursuit of economic success by adhering to standards of conduct that could not be enforced either by legal fiat or through the discipline of the market."¹⁴ In a broader sense, professionalism refers to those goals, values, and attitudes which exemplify the nobler aspects of the practice of law and that enhance the public image of lawyers and the legal profession.

The vast majority of commentators generally agree that the level of "professionalism" displayed by attorneys has declined dramatically in the last twenty-five years.¹⁵ They point to the following as evidence: (1) a decline in civility and courteous conduct between lawyers, an increase in unethical or uncivil behavior among lawyers and judges, frequent lapses of appropriate ethical and professional conduct, and increasingly aggressive, competitive, and money-oriented legal battles, fought with a "win at all costs" approach;¹⁶ (2) increased competition and pressure to win-and the underlying theory that law has become a "business" rather than a profession, placing a heightened emphasis on materialism and money;¹⁷ (3) a decline in attorney and client loyalty to the law firm;¹⁸ (4) frequent and abrupt dissolutions and reconstitutions of large law firms;¹⁹ (5) an increase in aggressive lawyer advertising;²⁰ and (6) a perceived general decline in lawyers' values, ideals, and morals.²¹

The poor public perception of lawyers confirmed by a 1978 poll²² has continued to decline in the 1990s.²³ Perhaps in response to this decline, the legal profession has engaged in what Burnele Powell, former chair of the American Bar Association's ("ABA") Standing Committee on Professional Discipline, describes as a "round of professional self-evaluation" and introspection, focused on professionalism and public opinion.²⁴ The movement began in the early 1980s, and was publicly acknowledged in 1986 when the ABA commissioned and published a study (often referred to as the "Blueprint" study) to determine whether the profession was "moving away from the principles of professionalism" and "was so perceived by the public."²⁵ Around the same time, the ABA commissioned the "Peter Hart Survey" to assess the public's opinion of lawyers.²⁶ The Peter Hart Survey, as well as many other surveys and polls, revealed a surprising level of mistrust and dislike of lawyers and the legal profession in general.²⁷

The ABA's Young Lawyers' Division also conducted two surveys of attorney satisfaction and mental health, reported in 1984 and 1990,²⁸ indicating that the quality of attorneys' health and lives declined from 1984 to 1990.²⁹ More recently, lawyers and social scientists have documented a growing dissatisfaction among lawyers and an internal, negative attitude toward the profession in the last ten years. Approximately 20% of lawyers are extremely dissatisfied with their jobs.³⁰ As evidence of this dissatisfaction, lawyers are currently experiencing a significantly higher level of depression (19%)³¹ and substance abuse (15-18%) than individuals in other professions (among the general population, only 3-9% is depressed, and only 10-13% is chemically dependent).³²

Since the mid-1980s, a barrage of articles, suggestions, and commentary has addressed methods to improve the public standing, satisfaction, and "professionalism" of lawyers.³³ Existing remedial measures are working neither internally (based on the continued high levels of lawyer dissatisfaction and poor mental health) nor externally (based on the poor public image of lawyers and the prevalence of poor attorney behavior). Not only are these crises relevant to the legal profession, but they often affect society as a whole. Some have observed that because lawyers constitute the vast majority of the legislature,³⁴ judiciary, and other influential government positions in the United States, the problems facing the legal profession inevitably affect public policy and the public's confidence in all branches of the government.³⁵

To inform the discussion about the professionalism, public confidence, and lawyer satisfaction crises, empirical research on attorneys and lawyers should be examined to determine whether there are certain characteristics, personality traits, attitudes, qualities, motivations, goals, values, ideals, or morals which are stereotypical of lawyers (collectively referred to as "attributes"). This Section begins by examining attributes of lawyers prior to entering law school, attributes of pre-law students, and motives for entering the field of law. Attributes of law students, the effects of law school, and attributes of practicing lawyers will be also investigated, thus establishing a developmental sequence for the process of becoming a lawyer.³⁶ Distinguishing pre-existing attributes from those which are developed in law school is particularly important in light of the common perceptions that lawyers are aggressive and competitive primarily because the practice of law demands such traits, that lawyers' distress is mainly caused by the demands and pressure of practicing law, and that legal education inculcates troublesome traits. Finally, the moral development of attorneys will be reviewed separately in developmental sequence, as a distinct "attribute," even though it is consistent with the other, more general attorney attributes.

There does appear to be a lawyer stereotype, or set of characteristics typically associated with lawyers.³⁷ A 1994 study found that undergraduate students perceived lawyers as significantly more "dominant" and significantly less "affiliative" than engineers, physicians, rehabilitation therapists, nurses, or teachers.³⁸ Dominance included socially desirable "masculine" traits of traditional dominance and ambition, while affiliation included socially desirable "feminine" traits of warmth and agreeability.³⁹ Law students and law faculty agree nearly unanimously that law students are very competitive.⁴⁰ Interestingly, these anecdotal stereotypes are generally consistent with empirical studies of the "lawyer attributes" described in the following sections.

Individuals who choose to enter law school appear to have various distinguishing characteristics as children and college students. They are highly focused on academics, have greater needs for dominance, leadership, and attention, and prefer initiating activity.⁴¹ They may have experienced a greater emphasis on scholastic achievement, reading, self-discipline, and the channeling of impulses into expression in their families.⁴² Their fathers were likely dominant and strong.⁴³ They may have had good social skills but a low interest in emotions or others' feelings.⁴⁴ Also, there are indications that successful, satisfied attorneys differ from less successful, less satisfied attorneys in that they experienced less social isolation, fewer feelings of inferiority, and less moodiness as children and young adults.⁴⁵

Alfred Adler, a noted psychologist, placed a great deal of emphasis on the early recollections and early childhood experiences of individuals in explaining their vocational choices.⁴⁶ He theorized that individuals' job choices were motivated by a desire to conquer early feelings of discomfort resulting from these experiences.⁴⁷ Thus, Adler's theory suggests that the early memories and experiences of law students might be responsible for their internal or unconscious desire to become a lawyer.

A 1960 study by Barbara Nachmann determined that family background experiences of law students differed significantly from those of dentists and social workers.⁴⁸ Nachmann found that authoritarian male dominance, self-discipline, school achievement, and reading were emphasized in law students' early childhood, while emotions and concern for others' feelings were de-emphasized.⁴⁹ Comparing graduate social work students to dental and law students, Nachmann found that throughout the childhood of the law students, the father was a strong, dominant, adequate, authoritarian, and clearly masculine figure.⁵⁰ The dental students were closer to their fathers than were the law students.⁵¹ Law students more frequently reported that their families promoted self-discipline, rather than submission to authority.⁵² Parental emphasis on school achievement and pleasurable early school experiences were more frequently reported by law students.⁵³ Reading was more often emphasized and pleasantly remembered by the law students.⁵⁴ Channeling impulses into activity ("do") was more emphasized in law and social work students' families; dental students' families more often emphasized impulse repression ("don't").⁵⁵ Finally, concern for emotional suffering and for the feelings of others was less emphasized in law and dental students' families than in social work students' families.⁵⁶

A 1984 study by James L. Hafner and M. Ebrahim Fakouri determined that the earliest memories of law students significantly differed from those of dental and clinical psychology students.⁵⁷ In particular, law students' earliest childhood memories contained more non-family members than those of the dental students, and mentioned school as a setting more frequently than those of the dental or psychology students; this suggests that school, and people outside the family, are more important to law students as children than they are to others.⁵⁸ Further, the law students' memories had the highest frequency of "active" components, denoting situations in which the student independently decided to act rather than simply react to the decisions or actions of others.⁵⁹ From these results, Hafner and Fakouri concluded that law students pursue goals with greater initiative than do dental or psychology students.⁶⁰ This emphasis on active behavior within an academic setting is consistent with other scholars' findings that lawyers are more motivated toward achievement, as compared to others.⁶¹ Also, because psychology students more often reported fear or anxiety in their early recollections, Hafner and Fakouri concluded that they were more emotional than dentists or lawyers, who "might be expected to see life in less emotional terms."⁶² This suggestion may be consistent with studies finding that lawyers rely less on emotions and more on rational analysis in making decisions.⁶³

Certain early childhood traits have been linked to lawyer success. A particularly interesting study of lawyers in their 1970s, all of whom were life-long participants in Stanford University's Terman Study of the Gifted, defined early personality differences distinguishing the most successful of these lawyers from the least successful.⁶⁴ Edwin Shneidman separated these lawyers into a highly successful group and a less successful group on the basis of both professional an personal success.⁶⁵ The study evaluated each of its male participants throughout his life in various areas including health history, character trait examination, home and family background, school history, evaluations by parents and teachers, and academic achievement tests.⁶⁶ The successful lawyers were rated higher by their mothers on leadership, popularity, sociability, mood stability, and musical appreciation at ages seven to twelve, and higher on leadership, popularity, and sociability at ages twelve to seventeen.⁶⁷ The successful group reported being less moody and having lower feelings of inferiority, less interest in religion, more interest in art and music, and more close friends than the less successful group, at ages 24-30.⁶⁸ From this data, the study concluded that the child with social skills, emotional stability, and diversified cultural interests was likely to have the most life-long success, which is contrary to the popular idea that love and work are mutually exclusive, or that bright, successful people were neurotic as children.⁶⁹ This Shneidman study suggests that less successful and less satisfied attorneys feel more inferior, moody, and socially isolated than do more successful lawyers, even as children, long before entering law school or embarking on the practice of law. If so, lawyer distress and dysfunction may not be caused entirely by the problems in the legal profession, but rather may reflect pre-existing problematic traits in distressed attorneys prior to entering the profession.

The number of studies assessing pre-law college students or entering law students is extremely limited.⁷⁰ They reveal that pre-law students need attention, prefer dominance and leadership, and are uncomfortable being subordinate or feeling inferior.⁷¹ These students tended, at least in the 1970s, to come from socioeconomically elite backgrounds (which may in part explain the need for superiority), although this may have changed since the 1970s as the legal profession grew demographically diverse.⁷² Pre-law students also appear to experience no greater incidence of psychological distress than the general population, suggesting that individuals who come to law school are not outwardly more troubled than most people.⁷³

In 1971, Martin J. Bohn, Jr. reported that the psychological needs of pre-law students are quite distinctive, differing significantly from the general undergraduate population, and particularly from the needs of engineering and pre-medical students. Pre-law students demonstrated definite needs to be leaders, to attract attention, and to avoid feeling inferior or assuming subordinate roles.⁷⁴ Pre-law students scored highest on the self-confidence, dominance, and exhibition scales, and lowest on the abasement and deference scales.⁷⁵ This indicates that pre-law students are often motivated by a desire for leadership, dominance, and the attention of others, which is consistent with the stereotype of lawyers as outgoing, confident (or perhaps egotistical) leaders. It may also indicate that pre-law students feel less humble or have a better self-image (or are more arrogant and egotistical) than others. It is unlikely that law school or the practice of law alone engenders these traits because they appear to be present prior to either experience.

A 1973 study by Robert Stevens and a 1981 study by Alexander Astin both reported that law students do not mirror the socio-economic, racial, or religious makeup of the society from which they come; instead, they come from an elite background of higher socioeconomic status than the general population.⁷⁶ Law students' need for dominance may be part of a desire to maintain the higher socioeconomic status that they grew up with, which would be consistent with research finding that law students are in part attracted by the money and prestige associated with the legal profession. Stevens also maintained that law students more often were social scientists as college students.⁷⁷

Pre-law students' mental health appears to be similar to that of the general adult population. In 1986, Benjamin, Kazniak, Sales, and Shanfield conducted a comprehensive study of law students and lawyers, in which they surveyed law students before they began law school. These researchers looked only at symptoms of psychiatric distress, such as anxiety, depression, hostility, and irritability.⁷⁸ The study's results indicate that law students are relatively "normal" before entering law school, meaning that they experience only slightly higher levels of psychiatric distress than the mean for the normal population.⁷⁹ There is a normal frequency of clinically depressed individuals among the pre-law group (10.3%), as compared to the expected 3-9% of individuals in industrialized nations who are clinically depressed.⁸⁰ While law students may need more attention and need to assume dominant and leadership roles, this study suggests that they are not necessarily experiencing more neurosis or psychological distress than most people prior to coming to law school.

Law students' and lawyers' stated reasons for entering the field of law are relevant because they indicate what is important to law students and lawyers. Studies of these motives provide information about a specific set of lawyer attributes: their values, goals, and ideals. In the following discussion, these studies are examined chronologically due to the gender differences that began to appear after about 1970.⁸¹

Some commentators charge that law students too often lack particular vocational interests or goals other than the furtherance of their education.⁸² Although a 1976 study by Jean Campbell demonstrated that law students maintained clear vocational interests "appropriate" for the law,⁸³ other studies conducted contemporaneously supported a theory that law students are largely ambivalent with respect to their occupational future: approximately 25% to 50% of law students consistently reported "uncertain career goals" as one of their reasons for going to law school.⁸⁴ Further, Thomas Goolsby's 1968 study indicated that the Law School Admissions Test ("LSAT"), which is designed to predict academic achievement in law school, and used universally as an admission criterion to law school, was no more effective than any other comprehensive test of general achievement in predicting success in law school.⁸⁵ Generic achievement ability appeared to be just as relevant to success in law school as any particular aptitude for the study of law.⁸⁶ The individuals who chose law in the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s thus may have had appropriate interests and academic aptitude to be lawyers, but may not have had strong desires to be lawyers. The disturbingly high number of "uncertain" law students identified in Stevens' study supports the contention that law school had become a residual graduate school.⁸⁷ If these students' values, goals, and ideals were as uncertain as were their career plans, then this may partially explain the unprincipled or unethical behavior complained of among experienced attorneys.

Law students consistently report certain reasons for deciding to attend to law school. Robert Stevens surveyed the classes of 1960, 1970, and 1972 at eight different law schools and incorporated his findings into one single, extensive study.⁸⁸ Most of these law students reported that they entered law school because of an interest in the subject matter and a desire for intellectual stimulation.⁸⁹ The top three motives were: (1) a desire for professional training (cited as "greatly important" to approximately 54% of the students on average); (2) an interest in the subject matter (greatly important to approximately 59% on average); and (3) a desire for intellectual stimulation (greatly important to approximately 44% on average).⁹⁰ The desire to make money varied in level of importance from law school to law school; at some schools it was greatly important to only 14% of the students,⁹¹ while at other schools in was greatly important to 58% of those students surveyed.⁹² Stevens notes that "a vast majority of all students surveyed indicated that 'prestige' was of some importance to them,"⁹³ in contrast to what Stevens calls "recent claims to the contrary;"⁹⁴ about a fourth of the students placed great importance on prestige in deciding to go to law school.⁹⁵ Overall, only about 17% of the students surveyed cited the desire to serve the underprivileged as greatly important.⁹⁶

Near the time of Stevens' study, an Australian study⁹⁷ examined students in law, engineering, medicine, and teaching at six Australian universities, and concluded that students' motives for choosing their careers fell into two general categories: "Professional Orientation" (consisting of an interest in the subject matter of the field along with a desire to be of service, which the authors labeled intrinsic factors) and "Status Concern" (consisting of more extrinsic reasons, such as concern for security, prestige, and wealth).⁹⁸ Consistent with Stevens' findings, the Australian study reported that altruistic concerns were a motivating factor for no more than 20% of entering law students, compared to 25% to 35% for other professions.⁹⁹

James Hedegard replicated Stevens' results in a 1979 study of Brigham Young University law students.¹⁰⁰ The top three reasons cited by those students for going to law school were desire for intellectual stimulation (65%), interest in the subject matter (63%), and desire for professional training (63%).¹⁰¹ Altruistic concerns were greatly important to only 18-31%, while prestige and financial rewards were again greatly important to 28-31% of the students.¹⁰²

These early studies consistently confirm that for the predominantly male population studied in the 1960s and 1970s, (1) interest in the subject matter of the law, a desire for professional training, and desire for intellectual stimulation were important goals;¹⁰³ (2) law students also valued money and prestige, but only secondarily;¹⁰⁴ and (3) altruistic concerns were important to consistently fewer law students.¹⁰⁵

Alexander Astin's 1981 study found that prelaw students' top goals included "becoming an authority in their field" and "being very well-off financially."¹⁰⁶ In contrast to the earlier studies, a greater percentage of prelaw students endorsed materialistic goals; 74% of prelaw students and 65% of all students cited financial motives as "essential" or "very important" goals.¹⁰⁷ Moreover, Astin found that the goal of being well-off financially had become more popular from 1969 to 1981 for all students, including law students.¹⁰⁸ Consistent with earlier studies, altruistic goals such as social issues and problems and helping others in difficulty were less popular than material and power goals.¹⁰⁹

More recent studies indicate significant differences between men and women in their stated motives for entering law school. Male law students are consistently more likely than female law students to admit that a desire to make money motivated their decision to enter the field of law.¹¹⁰ Additionally, female students are more likely than male students to cite altruistic reasons for becoming a lawyer.¹¹¹ In the 1973 Australian study, status concern was more common among men than women for all professions,¹¹² which is consistent with other findings regarding stated motivations to enter the legal profession among American students.¹¹³ This also suggests that differences in motivation according to gender are not particular to the field of law. It is often suggested that gender differences are simply an artifact of different social norms for men and women; that is, it may be more socially acceptable for men to admit to financial motives (being expected to support families) and more socially acceptable for women to have altruistic motives for their careers (being more in line with traditional, feminine occupations).¹¹⁴ One explanation for this is that actual motives for both men and women may not differ substantially, but what is socially acceptable for them to report may differ. The alternative explanation is that female law students are actually more altruistic than male law students.

In 1970, a study conducted by Georgina Williams LaRussa found a relationship between women law students' reasons for entering law school and their later career satisfaction.¹¹⁵ Fifty-two percent of the women mentioned altruistic (helping society or others) motives, and 57.5% realistic (practical, utilitarian, materialistic) motives.¹¹⁶ The emphasis on altruistic motives among women law students is not surprising, nor is it likely to be representative of male law students, given the results of other studies of women's motives for entering law and hypothesized social norms about acceptable motivations for women, and the earlier studies described above on altruism.

The emphasis on realistic goals, however, appears to be important to career satisfaction. Interestingly, when the women in the LaRussa study were surveyed five years later for career satisfaction, different motives for going to law school distinguished satisfied women attorneys from those less satisfied.¹¹⁷ Those who went to law school to develop existing talents, or to fulfill personal, realistic, or materialistic goals were happier as lawyers than those who were interested in the actual outcomes of lawyering or who were seeking intellectual stimulation.¹¹⁸ A later study indicated that lawyers who are more objective, rational, and logical in decision-making style were the most satisfied.¹¹⁹ The realistic and pragmatic goals of the satisfied attorneys may reflect attributes of objectivity and rationality, which are related to job satisfaction and which may be present prior to entering law school. Overall, these later studies on motives do not add much to an understanding of lawyer attributes other than to illuminate various gender differences.

Law students tend to complain about their peers: "I am somewhat surprised to find out, although it seems logical to me now, what a really narrow group of people are actually attracted to law school," and "there's very little appreciation of creative intelligence or social intelligence, ability to deal with people and perceive situations really accurately."¹²⁰ They also complain that their peers are homogeneous, unimaginative, unexciting, and conform to a narrow stereotype of intelligence.¹²¹ This purported homogeneity, however, is not necessarily supported by the research and data about law students.¹²²

Research involving law students is plentiful, but for the most part, the studies do not build on each other or use the same measurement instruments in any consistent fashion. There are scattered studies in each decade from the late 1950s to the present.¹²³ Also, women were usually excluded from the sampled population until the mid-1970s. The following sections discussing the research are presented chronologically, in order to fairly reflect demographic, social, political, and gender differences in the population studied.

In 1967 and 1968, Norman Solkoff reported at least two studies comparing law students to medical students.¹²⁴ Although his focus may have been on medical students,¹²⁵ using law students merely as a control group, Solkoff's research supported interesting findings regarding law students' attributes. Solkoff used the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Inventory (MMPI) to assess the students' personality characteristics, which is a highly respected and widely used personality assessment measure and screening technique.¹²⁶

Solkoff found that medical and law students differed significantly. Law students appeared to be more extroverted and sociable, more free from anxiety and insecurity, more ebullient and at ease in interpersonal relations, more "masculine" in orientation and more cynical,¹²⁷ less humanitarian,¹²⁸ and more authoritarian¹²⁹ than medical students.¹³⁰ The medical students appeared to be more introspective, idealistic, prone to worry, socially perceptive, "sensitive to the needs of others," and attuned to interpersonal nuances than the law students.¹³¹ Unfortunately, Solkoff drew no comparisons of either group with general college students or adults. Solkoff also asserted that his results were consistent with those of earlier studies with respect to humanitarianism and cynicism among medical and law students.¹³²

Solkoff went on to investigate what differentiated students ranking higher academically from those ranking lower.¹³³ In this second study, he found that only two indicators distinguished the top law students from the bottom ones: IQ score and "the bottom students' exhibition of a greater tendency towards heightened levels of unrealistic self-appraisal."¹³⁴ Solkoff also discovered that the lowest-ranked law students tended to obtain higher humanitarian scores.¹³⁵ This is consistent with later studies findings' that individuals who are more people-oriented¹³⁶ are more likely to either drop out of law school¹³⁷ or be dissatisfied as attorneys.¹³⁸

In 1976, Stephen Reich investigated the differences between top academically-ranking law students and bottom-ranking students. He discovered that the top students' interests were "clearly professional or artistic in nature," while the bottom students' interests were more "predominantly business or commercial in nature."¹³⁹ These findings are fairly consistent with other studies of medical, engineering, and male and female undergraduates, indicating that law students simply follow the general pattern in this regard.¹⁴⁰

A 1967 study by Paul Miller employed the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to distinguish law school drop-outs from those who continued their legal education.¹⁴¹ The study found no significant differences in the personality "types" at each of four law schools, suggesting that all of the law schools attracted the same mix of students, in terms of personality.¹⁴² However, law students differed significantly from male college students by a marked preference for Thinking over Feeling.¹⁴³ Lawrence Richard replicated this finding in an unpublished 1994 study,¹⁴⁴ suggesting that this preference has remained relatively consistent over time and independent of gender influences. Richard explains that the dimensions of Thinking and Feeling both represent:

rational, valid decision-making methods. Both involve thought, and neither process is related to emotions. . . .

Those who prefer to make decisions on the basis of Thinking prefer to come to closure in a logical, orderly manner. They can readily discern inaccuracies and are often critical. They can easily hurt others' feelings without knowing it. They are excellent problem solvers. They review the cause and effect of potential actions before deciding. Thinkers are often accused of being cold and somewhat calculating because their decisions do not reflect their own personal values. They focus on discovering truth, and they seek justice.

Those who prefer to make decisions on the basis of Feeling apply their own personal values to make choices. They seek harmony and, therefore, are sensitive to the effect of their decisions on others. They need, and are adept at giving, praise. They are interested in the person behind the idea or the job. They seek to do what is right for themselves and other people and are interested in mercy.¹⁴⁵

The replication of Miller's results in Richard's more recent study¹⁴⁶ (which included women lawyers) suggests that this is a particularly strong finding, that these personality type preferences survive into practice, and that the introduction of women into the sample has not changed the results.¹⁴⁷

Miller's study also determined that more of the Feeling law students dropped out of law school than did the Thinking types, suggesting that Feeling may be more incompatible with the study of law.¹⁴⁸ Perhaps the most striking finding was an "almost perfect inverse relationship" between the extent to which one of the sixteen personality types was present among law students and its drop-out rate.¹⁴⁹ The type that is most prevalent in law school is typically "dependable and practical with a realistic respect for facts, who absorbs and remembers great numbers of facts and is able to cite cases to support his evaluations, and who emphasizes analysis, logic and decisiveness."¹⁵⁰ This type exhibited a 6.7% drop-out rate.¹⁵¹ The least common personality type in law school belongs to the type of person who is "concerned chiefly with people, who values harmonious human contacts, is friendly, tactful, sympathetic, and loyal, who is warmed by approval and bothered by indifference and who tends to idealize what he admires."¹⁵² This type exhibited a drop-out rate of 28.1%.¹⁵³

The likelihood of dropping out was not related to academic promise, based on grade point average and LSAT scores; instead, it was related to personality characteristics.¹⁵⁴ This is consistent with psychological research on job satisfaction suggesting that job satisfaction will be optimized if job requirements are matched to individuals' personality, interests and motivations, rather than their skills, knowledge, talents, and abilities.¹⁵⁵

In Robert Stevens' 1973 study, mentioned earlier,¹⁵⁶ women comprised approximately 5-6% of the sample population, and non-Caucasians represented only 2%.¹⁵⁷ Demographically, law students came from high socioeconomic, elite backgrounds.¹⁵⁸ Further, a comparison of the classes of 1960, 1970, and 1972 exhibited a trend toward increased rejection of parents' religious beliefs in favor of atheism and agnosticism¹⁵⁹ and towards homogenization of backgrounds.¹⁶⁰ Stevens' study also found that law students in the 1950's were predominantly humanists in undergraduate school; by the late 1960's, however, law students were predominantly social scientists.¹⁶¹ The results of Stevens' study suggest that the character of law students changed significantly over this time period.¹⁶²

A 1974 demographic study conducted by Kay Standley found that law students were more often first-born or only children, but that this was also true of medical students, college undergraduates, and graduate students in general.¹⁶³ Medical students, however, were more likely to have a father who was a physician than law students were likely to have a father who was an attorney, suggesting that law students do not "follow in their father's footsteps" as often as do medical students.¹⁶⁴

Stevens' study also assessed perceived competitiveness, aggression, and congeniality among law students, based on a survey of first-term students.¹⁶⁵ When asked about their peers, most students expected to find high or moderate levels of aggression and competition.¹⁶⁶ They reported finding as much cooperation and friendliness among their peers as they expected, but less competitiveness and aggression than they expected.¹⁶⁷ This result, however, could have been due solely to the elimination of grades and the substitution of a pass-fail system during the study.¹⁶⁸ The students consistently mentioned that competitiveness still existed, although it may have been more subtle or in the form of a self-induced, internal competitiveness fostered by a natural competitiveness in the students rather than by peer pressure.¹⁶⁹ They also viewed aggression as a favorable trait, as being "on the offensive" or "ambitious over the long run."¹⁷⁰ This finding is consistent with stereotypes of law students as competitive and aggressive; however, it alone does not indicate whether law students possess more of these attributes than other people. A later study in 1983 suggests that law students are competitive.¹⁷¹

Alan Katz and Mark Denbeaux in 1976 investigated cynicism and other characteristics of first-year law students in response to concerns in the legal community that the "sheer volume of new lawyers would make it more difficult to keep the dishonest out of the profession" and that the stereotype of the "'crafty,' 'manipulative,' 'calculating,' 'Machiavellian'" lawyer would be revived.¹⁷² Katz and Denbeaux's study measured cynicism by assessing the students' feelings of trust or mistrust towards people generally,¹⁷³ while Machiavellianism was measured by how much the students agreed with statements from the writings of Machiavelli.¹⁷⁴ In contrast to what the authors expected, the law students were more trustful than a national sample of adults, and were no more Machiavellian than a sample of college undergraduates.¹⁷⁵ The study's findings suggest that law students are not deserving of the pejorative stereotype assigned to them. Other studies, however, indicate that law students' cynicism increases and idealism decreases as a result of law school.¹⁷⁶ Consequently, Katz and Denbeaux's study of law students during their first week of classes may not be representative of lawyers.¹⁷⁷

Law students in the Katz and Denbeaux study also believed that lawyers were more honest and ethical than "people generally"¹⁷⁸ and that lawyers were just as ethical as doctors.¹⁷⁹ This result is inconsistent with other studies of law students¹⁸⁰ and of undergraduates¹⁸¹ who ranked the level of honesty and ethics of doctors higher than lawyers, as well as studies that found that law school tends to increase law students' cynicism about lawyers and the legal profession.¹⁸²

Possibly as a result of increasing numbers of women in the field of law during the late 1970s, researchers and academics conducted a number of studies investigating women law students, women lawyers, and gender differences among law students and lawyers.¹⁸³ A 1978 study by Jane Coplin and John Williams found that women law students described themselves as significantly more autonomous, aggressive, confident, and "internally motivated to succeed in pursuits of socially recognized significance" than did female undergraduate students.¹⁸⁴ These results were consistent with Martin Bohn's 1971 findings that pre-law students were more interested in dominance than other college students.¹⁸⁵ Also, the female law students in the 1978 study saw themselves as less feminine, more confident, with greater need for achievement, dominance, autonomy, and aggression, and lower need for nurturance, succorance, abasement, and deference, than female undergraduates.¹⁸⁶ Even with such a strong self-image, the women law students believed that the "ideal lawyer" was even more persevering, interested in success and influence, knowledgeable, conscientious, serious, emotionally independent, competitive, distant from others, and objective than they perceived themselves to be.¹⁸⁷ It can be argued, however, that the women law students (or professional students) may have been more dominant, aggressive, and "masculine" than their male counterparts simply because they were entering a traditionally male-dominated, atypical profession.¹⁸⁸

A 1994 study by Heather McLean and Rudolf Kalin found that although dominance was a trait associated with lawyers in general, only female law students saw themselves as slightly more dominant than the mean; male law students actually saw themselves as less dominant than the mean.¹⁸⁹ This study, which involved Canadian law students, also found that they perceived themselves to be less "affiliative" than the mean. These results indicate that their self-perceptions were less warm and agreeable and more cold and quarrelsome than were those of other graduate students.¹⁹⁰ The law students' overall self-perceptions correlated only slightly with undergraduates' perception of the stereotypical lawyer, indicating that law students see themselves differently than others see them.¹⁹¹ These correlations also suggested that engineering and law are the most similar to each other, while nursing and teaching are the most different from law.¹⁹²

Law students also appear to be competitive. Janet St. Lawrence's 1983 study of a cognitive-behavioral intervention designed to reduce stress in law students stated that "students increased their knowledge and were able to use their knowledge effectively in their personal lives while retaining their competitive approach to life."¹⁹³ The "Hard Driving" scale of the Jenkins Activity Schedule measured the "competitiveness" of the law students.¹⁹⁴ Scores on competitiveness were unchanged by the intervention.¹⁹⁵

There are a few disturbing studies which hint at problems in law student personality. Before turning to these studies, it will be helpful to summarize the portrait of the law student painted by the foregoing research. The research uniformly portrays law students as dominant, competitive, leadership-oriented, socially confident, extroverted, sociable, free from anxiety and insecurity, ebullient, and at ease in interpersonal relations. Law students prefer the MBTI dimension of Thinking rather than Feeling and accept "what our society considers to be a 'masculine' orientation," in addition to ideas of "survival of the fittest, hero worship of acquaintances, and rugged individualism."¹⁹⁶ The typical law student is not overly humanitarian¹⁹⁷ and tends not to be the type of person who is "concerned chiefly with people, who values harmonious human contacts, is friendly, tactful, sympathetic, and loyal, who is warmed by approval and bothered by indifference and who tends to idealize what he admires."¹⁹⁸ The research also suggests, although with some expected gender differences, that law students are motivated by achievement rather than altruism.¹⁹⁹

The above characterization, however, may be only part of the law students' personality. Stephen Reich reported interesting findings about the inner world of the law student consistent with other studies reporting a high level of psychological distress among law students and lawyers. This suggests the existence of a chink in the formidable "armor" portrayed by the foregoing studies.

In a particularly revealing study conducted by Stephen Reich in 1976, law students' external attributes appeared to be greatly at odds with their internal feelings.²⁰⁰ Reich administered the California Psychological Inventory to ninety-four first-year law students in an attempt to identify the personality characteristics associated with academic performance. While Reich found no personality attributes which correlated with academic performance in law school,²⁰¹ his incidental findings were much more interesting. Law students scored significantly differently than the norm for males on sixteen of eighteen of the test's scales.²⁰² Their consistently high scores on one group of these scales indicate that they:

tend to be seen as aggressive, persuasive, having leadership potential and initiative, as being socially ascendant and self-seeking, quick, spontaneous, as having an expressive, ebullient nature, as intelligent, outspoken, sharp-witted, and possessing self-confidence . . . . [They would have] great interest in and enthusiasm for social role-playing, and for competitive, sharp-witted and self-seeking social relations. It is the picture of a group which projects itself or attempts to project itself, as socially successful, as possessing a high degree of social polish, and at least the appearance of great self-confidence, poise, and leadership.²⁰³

These findings are entirely consistent with previously discussed studies finding that law students tend to be socially at ease, ebullient,²⁰⁴ and initiative-taking,²⁰⁵ as compared to other students.

In sharp contrast, however, and despite these qualities, the students in Reich's study also scored significantly low on a "Sense of Well Being" scale.²⁰⁶ This indicates that the students "tend to be seen as self-defensive and apologetic, as awkward, cautious, and as constricted in thought and action."²⁰⁷ Reich concluded that this "gives some evidence of a flaw in the social armor of the law students; it may be an indication that on an inner level, on the level of self-doubt, the law student does not see himself as a polished, aggressive, successful, and dominant person."²⁰⁸ If there were no other scores suggesting the same conclusions, the findings could be considered a puzzle to be interpreted with caution. The students' scores on another cluster of scales, however, indicated that they are "seen as awkward, moody, dogmatic, under-controlled, impulsive, defensive, self-centered, suspicious, aloof, inhibited, cautious, nervous, and as having internal conflicts and problems."²⁰⁹ Because these scores support the prior interpretation of the Sense of Well-Being scores, Reich concluded that "on an intrapersonal and inner level, law students are insecure, defensive, distant, and lacking in maturity and socialization."²¹⁰

[l]aw students . . . wear a social mask and attempt to make a strong and definite impression on others; they act and react in great measure on the basis of the social role which they have adopted and which they feel is expected of them by society. While they publicly project strength, activity, and enthusiasm, their private personality is one of awkwardness, defensiveness, and nervousness. It is highly possible that as a reaction formation to their inner feelings of inadequacy and uncertainty they have adopted a social posture which is dominant, clear-cut, and ascendant.²¹¹

This analysis is entirely consistent with Alfred Adler's concept that individuals choose careers in order to overcome feelings of inferiority or experiences of discomfort.²¹² Reich contends that law school is not likely to change these conflicting attributes of law students and, further, that a legal career actually exacerbates and perpetuates this conflict between the outer persona and inner feelings.²¹³ Reich's study suggests that there are pre-existing personality conflicts in law students which may be contributing to the current low levels of lawyer satisfaction and low public opinion of attorneys.

Law students consistently report more anxiety than the general population.²¹⁴ A 1957 study by Leonard Eron and Robert Redmount found that law students reported significantly more anxiety than medical students.²¹⁵

A 1983 study by Marilyn Heins and her colleagues noted further that law students reported significantly higher levels of Academic Stress (stress associated with the academic demands) and Fear-of-Failing Stress (stress "related to personal reactions to the academic environment") than medical students.²¹⁶ Too much or too little stress is associated with poor performance, thus an optimal amount of stress is needed for optimal performance.²¹⁷

In the 1983 Heins study, law students indicated that they managed to cope with this stress, but were far less inclined to seek help from anyone in order to deal with it.²¹⁸ The law students also reported a greater frequency of objective stress symptoms, such as excessive alcohol use, than did the medical students.²¹⁹ This suggests that the law students denied their stress levels, or used more socially isolated and perhaps maladaptive ways of dealing with their stress, as compared to medical students.

Motivated in part by the inconsistent methods, low response rates, and methodological problems of previous studies, a 1985 study by Shanfield and Benjamin reported that law students had significantly elevated scores on a wide variety of measures designed to assess psychiatric distress, compared to the general population.²²⁰ Shanfield and Benjamin also cross-sectionally surveyed law students in October of the first, second, and third years, and in February of the first year finding that law students scored significantly differently than the norm on almost every scale, and with women law students showing higher levels of distress than men.²²¹

The study concluded that "the law students are overall quite distressed."²²² The study further discovered that there were no significant differences in levels of distress between the classes, suggesting that law students experience the same level of distress throughout law school, with the exception that second-year students may have experienced more hostility-related symptoms.²²³ Finally, the study noted that twelve percent of law students experience such significant depression as to warrant psychiatric evaluation and intervention, as compared to only 3-9% of the general population.²²⁴

Shanfield and Benjamin mention that these results do not indicate whether individuals with higher ongoing levels of distress or with a higher potential to develop psychiatric symptoms when under stress are attracted disproportionately to law school, or whether the law school experience creates the distress.²²⁵ The authors did not collect data from law students prior to the commencement of their legal training; nor does their data indicate whether this psychiatric distress impairs social or occupational performance, or whether it is associated with lawyer impairment (substance abuse, psychiatric disorders, or ethical violations) after law school.²²⁶ Although they suggest further research is necessary to determine whether impaired lawyers are "drawn from the ranks of the most distressed law students,"²²⁷ to date, no follow-up research has been reported. Shanfield and Benjamin, however, did participate in a second study reported in 1986, which examined the psychological distress of law students before, during, and after completing law school.²²⁸

The 1986 study, conducted by Professors Benjamin, Kazniak, Sales, and Shanfield, is perhaps the most comprehensive, systematic, and methodologically sound study of law students and lawyers to date.²²⁹ Their results, based on surveys of students in the summer before they entered law school, indicate that law students are "normal" before entering law school.²³⁰ However, symptoms of psychiatric distress increase significantly, to a level higher than the mean for the normal population, during the first year of law school.²³¹ Furthermore, the study determined that these symptoms progressively increase throughout law school and do not abate during the first two years of practice following graduation.²³² The symptoms of psychiatric distress fell primarily into the categories of obsessive-compulsiveness and paranoia.²³³ The 1986 study ultimately concluded that distress may be related to legal education's overemphasis on thinking and its underemphasis on the development of interpersonal skills.²³⁴

The 1986 study is not burdened with many of the difficulties associated with earlier studies because it relied on validated, proven measurement instruments.²³⁵ It improved on the authors' previous study because it re-tested a number of the same subjects over their law school careers, using a longitudinal instead of a cross-sectional design.²³⁶ The authors discovered that 17-40% of the group studied reported significantly elevated levels of depression, and 20-40% of the same group "reported other significantly elevated symptoms, including obsessive-compulsive, interpersonal sensitivity, anxiety, hostility, paranoid ideation, and (psychoticism) social alienation and isolation."²³⁷ The pre-law students, however, experienced significantly less distress than the law students and alumni. For example, approximately 10.3% of the pre-law students suffered from depression,²³⁸ compared to only 3-9% of individuals in the general population in industrialized nations.²³⁹

From these findings, the authors concluded that the pre-law students were not disproportionately depressed compared to the normal population.²⁴⁰ The authors also found no demographic or descriptive differences distinguishing those who developed severe symptomatology from those who did not.²⁴¹ No "significant relationships were found between symptom levels and age, undergraduate grade-point average, law school grade-point average, hours devoted to undergraduate studies, hours devoted to law school studies, hours devoted to employment as alumni, passage of the state bar examination, and the size of the law practice,"²⁴² indicating that the often-quoted reasons for lawyer dysfunction and dissatisfaction of long hours and large law firms are not supported by the empirical data.

The 1986 study shows that law students and new lawyers have a higher incidence of psychological distress than does the normal population.²⁴³ The authors assert that law school may be responsible for this phenomenon, suggesting that law school has such a pervasive, socializing effect that it causes law students to become unduly paranoid, hostile, and obsessive-compulsive.²⁴⁴ Furthermore, legal educators might reasonably believe that law students must develop those qualities responsible for this increased psychological distress in order to learn and perform adversarial practice skills successfully.²⁴⁵ Additional research is needed, however, to determine whether elevated levels of psychiatric symptoms are truly helpful for lawyers practicing in an adversarial setting.²⁴⁶

Robert Stevens' 1973 study determined that law students' level of reported tension and the amount of time they spent studying declined sharply by the third year of law school.²⁴⁷ This finding is somewhat inconsistent with Benjamin and his colleagues' findings.²⁴⁸ Stevens' finding is, however, consistent with a pattern of student withdrawal from involvement in intellectual and academic activities found in studies of medical and undergraduate students, and may represent an interest in the "real world" as opposed to academic activities as the time of graduation draws closer.²⁴⁹

Benjamin and his colleagues suggest that "unbalanced development of student interpersonal skills" may be one of the factors contributing to law students' psychiatric distress.²⁵⁰ This suggestion emerges from the study's finding of an association between elevated distress levels and interpersonal concerns.²⁵¹ Also, because legal education does not assist or encourage students to acquire interpersonal skills and often concentrates exclusively on the development of analytic skills, students may ignore the social and emotional consequences of decision-making.²⁵² These ideas are supported, in part, by Richard's and Miller's findings that law students disproportionately rely on analytic, rational thought to make decisions, rather than focusing on the emotional or humanistic consequences of their decisions (e.g., Thinking vs. Feeling).²⁵³ Law students may be Thinkers rather than Feelers before coming to law school, but law school's exclusive emphasis on "'objective thought, rational deduction and empirical proof'"²⁵⁴ likely exacerbates these tendencies, perhaps resulting in emotional distress present throughout law school and for years thereafter.²⁵⁵ Also, Heins' study finding that the majority of law students will not seek help from others in dealing with their problems suggests a profile of individuals who de-emphasize interpersonal skills and relations and tend to rely exclusively on logical analysis and rational thought to solve their problems.²⁵⁶

Law students appear to handle this stress in various ways other than by committing suicide. Despite law students' reports of increased stress, depression, anxiety, and general psychiatric distress, a 1983 study reported that "law students commit suicide significantly less frequently than [their] age-matched peers,"²⁵⁷ including medical students and graduate students.²⁵⁸ As an alternative to suicide, law students may instead handle their stress by adopting maladaptive methods of coping, through means such as isolation and excessive alcohol consumption, or by channeling it into achievement, competition with other students, hostility, or aggression.²⁵⁹

A 1994 report of the American Association of Law Schools ("AALS Report") presented evidence that law students depend increasingly on alcohol as law school progresses,²⁶⁰ perhaps to deal with their stress and anxiety.²⁶¹ The AALS Report indicated that current drug and alcohol usage did not differ appreciably from that of college graduates of similar age, but that law students reported higher usage rates for alcohol, psychedelic drugs (other than LSD), tranquilizers, and barbiturates.²⁶²

While the "vast majority" of law students reported that their alcohol or drug usage began before they entered law school,²⁶³ the study showed that law students tended to use alcohol more frequently as they progressed through law school, with third-year law students' usage being significantly higher than that of first- or second-year students.²⁶⁴ The AALS Report also indicated that third-year students tended to use alcohol in a maladaptive fashion to relieve stress or tension.²⁶⁵ This type of usage could be a precursor to later, more severe substance abuse problems once those students become attorneys.²⁶⁶

In 1977, Paul Carrington and James Conley reported that some University of Michigan law students simply "turned off" after their first year of law school and continued through school in an alienated and isolated state.²⁶⁷ Carrington and Conley's analysis of law student attitudes indicated the presence of three main factors: alienation, dissatisfaction, and sociability.²⁶⁸ Alienation was defined as disinterest or disengagement, being "turned off", uncaringness, indifference to the idea of law reform, devaluation of association with peers, and suspicion of peers and alumni.²⁶⁹ Carrington and Conley found, disturbingly, that one in seven (26 of 185) Michigan law students manifested "a very strong tendency towards alienation."²⁷⁰ No demographic factors correlated with alienation, as it appeared to cut across race, gender, sex, age, and socio-economic lines.²⁷¹ Only one item correlated positively with alienation: working while in undergraduate school.²⁷² Alienated students tended to spend little time and effort studying, received lower grades, and admitted more frequent acts of antisocial conduct, such as vandalism.²⁷³ These authors believe that alienated students detract from law school morale and are more likely to be a menace to their clients and to exhibit indifference toward professional standards of conduct.²⁷⁴

A slightly higher percentage (15.67%) of the Michigan law students reported being "dissatisfied."²⁷⁵ Dissatisfied students were angry at faculty, peers, and alumni, and worried about grades.²⁷⁶ According to Carrington and Conley, the dissatisfied student is "not 'turned off,' he or she is 'teed off.'"²⁷⁷ Dissatisfaction among law students appears to be at its highest levels during the first year of law school, and then decrease during the second and third years.²⁷⁸ Dissatisfaction did not affect academic performance or diligence, but it correlated with alcohol and drug use.²⁷⁹ While both alienated and dissatisfied students used alcohol and drugs more often than the norm, the alienated students used less than the dissatisfied students.²⁸⁰

The authors concluded that the dissatisfied students did not constitute "particular ethical risks," even though they could be risks to themselves, and later to clients, due to their maladaptive ways of dealing with their dissatisfaction.²⁸¹ Means of coping or dealing with dissatisfaction included abusing alcohol and drugs and continuing to strive in law school despite feelings of hostility and anger.²⁸² The fact that dissatisfaction decreased over time suggests that it is not a personality trait existing in students prior to entering law school. In contrast, alienation may be a stable personality trait present in law students before law school.²⁸³ Carrington and Conley concluded that both states, alienation and dissatisfaction, are excessively prevalent and damaging both to the law student and the law school milieu.²⁸⁴ These states are also likely to be damaging to the legal profession generally, considering the behavior and attitudes these individuals are likely to display once in practice.

The third main factor that Carrington and Conley identified in their study of law student attitudes was "sociability." "Sociable" law students, the study found, generally tended to desire greater personal contact with faculty, peers, and lawyers.²⁸⁵ Sociable law students often found law school lonely and considered it too doctrinal, failing to focus sufficiently on public policy.²⁸⁶ Carrington and Conley concluded that sociability, while less harmful than alienation or dissatisfaction, still contributed to students' discomfort while in law school.²⁸⁷

Overall, the study's results identified three traits which may explain the high levels of psychiatric and emotional stress among law students. The large number of alienated, dissatisfied, and sociable students likely are those experiencing the greatest anxiety, depression, and other symptomatology, thus explaining the greater-than-normal levels of distress among law students. After law school, these traits may be related to unprofessional lawyer conduct and lawyer distress.

In addition to increased psychological distress, there are a number of effects of law school on individuals. These effects are examined below.

Some authors have suggested that law school affects students' altruism²⁸⁸ and cynicism²⁸⁹ and encourages conformity to a homogeneous norm.²⁹⁰ Other studies suggest that the primary function and effect of law school is to teach students to "think like a lawyer."²⁹¹ Although most of these assertions are supported by empirical research, other assertions, in particular that law school homogenizes the attitudes or attributes of students, remain unsupported.²⁹²

A number of studies present evidence that law students' attitudes change as a result of legal education. Don Anderson's 1973 study determined that engineers, lawyers, and doctors become more professionally oriented, or more protective of their professions, during their training.²⁹³ In contrast, James Hedegard's 1979 examination of the effects of legal education noted that research about changes in law students' attitudes toward legal ethics during law school yielded inconsistent results, concluding that in general, law students' attitudes do not change as a result of attending law school.²⁹⁴ Eron and Redmount's 1957 study found that by senior year, medical students' cynicism increased, while that of law students decreased;²⁹⁵ yet, other studies maintained that law students' cynicism increased and idealism decreased as a result of education.²⁹⁶ Hedegard also found that law students' interest in public service employment decreased, while their interest in employment with a private, small law firm increased during law school.²⁹⁷ Overall, these trends are consistent with a decrease in law students' altruism.

Students' attitudes toward the legal profession may worsen during law school. Hedegard's 1979 study determined that law students' perceptions of attorneys were fairly positive at the time that law students entered law school, but that their perceptions of lawyers markedly worsened by the end of their first year.²⁹⁸ The study demonstrated that students' attitudes almost uniformly became "less certain, more qualified, and less positive."²⁹⁹ This shift was much more apparent with respect to opinions about the way lawyers are than it was with respect to ideas about the way lawyers ought to be, suggesting that students' values change less than their perceptions about the real world.³⁰⁰ Finally, Hedegard found that law students' opinions did not appear, overall, to become more homogeneous during the first year, contradicting the popular opinion that law school is a conformist, homogenizing influence.³⁰¹

Hedegard also investigated changes in personality traits during the first year of law school by administering a standard personality questionnaire before and after the first year.³⁰² He found that the first year of law school was associated with many significant changes, including a shift away from intellectual interests, increased independence of judgment, decreased sociability and interest in people, and decreased altruism.³⁰³ Law students did not become more homogeneous in personality as a result of the first-year.³⁰⁴ Hedegard compared these changes to changes generally found in undergraduates as they go through college, and was able to discard law students' tendencies to become more expressive and assertive, tolerant of ambiguity and complexity, and interested in aesthetic things as generally true of all students in advanced education, and not specific to students in legal education.³⁰⁵

Law students, however, differed from undergraduates in that they became less philosophical and introspective, less interested in abstractions, ideas, and the scientific method, less dominant, confident, and sociable, and more anxious and internally conflicted.³⁰⁶ Overall, Hedegard's work provides strong support for the effectiveness of legal education in causing personality changes.³⁰⁷ Hedegard's results, however, should be read in conjunction with other researchers' findings, because his sample of law students was primarily (98%) composed of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon).³⁰⁸

In 1973, Stevens assessed third-year law students with respect to ambition and aggression in order to determine the effects of attending law school.³⁰⁹ Higher levels of tension combined with a perception of law school as highly competitive were related to increases in students' aggressiveness.³¹⁰ Of the third-year students, those who experienced a high level of tension throughout law school were more likely to believe that they became more aggressive as a result of law school.³¹¹ Also, more of those who described the law school atmosphere as very competitive (as opposed to very cooperative) reported that they had become more aggressive.³¹² Increased aggression was not related to amount of faculty contact, quality of faculty-student interactions, number of hours spent studying, or frequency of informal discussion.³¹³

Higher levels of tension, perceived competition, and positive faculty-student relations were related to increases in the students' ambition.³¹⁴ Students who remained tense throughout law school were more likely to believe that they became more ambitious as law school progressed.³¹⁵ Also, students who perceived faculty-student relations as warmer and more frequent were more likely to believe that they became more ambitious during law school.³¹⁶ Finally, students who considered the law school atmosphere to be very competitive were more likely to believe that they became more ambitious as a result of law school.³¹⁷ Increased ambition was also associated with decreased intention to go into public defender, legal aid, or civil liberties work, indicating that the students' increased ambition was not likely to be focused on public service.³¹⁸ Based on these findings, it appears that law students deal with tension by becoming more aggressive and ambitious.

Increased competitiveness during law school may be associated with higher grades in law school. In 1974, Michael Patton reported that higher-achieving law students' interactions with peers were more competitive, task-related, and professional in tone,³¹⁹ while lower-achieving students expressed doubt about being able to present the "right" image when interacting with peers and faculty.³²⁰ The latter students appeared to prefer more personally based relationships.³²¹ The most academically successful law students preferred relationships that maintained a competitive and professional, not personal, tone.³²² These conclusions are consistent with findings that law students are less emotional and interpersonally-oriented.³²³ This phenomenon may exert a subtle pressure on otherwise sociable students to learn to interact with others in a more professional, distanced manner, which also may explain increased distress and anxiety among such law students.

The lawyer stereotype is to some degree consistent with the empirical research on lawyer attributes. Lawyers are likely to be more achievement-oriented, more aggressive, and more competitive than other professionals and people in general.³²⁴ These general traits will be discussed below, in addition to two studies distinguishing successful from less successful attorneys.

John Houston and his colleagues found in 1992 that male and female attorneys are more competitive than nurses.³²⁵ This study defined competitiveness as "the desire to win in interpersonal situations."³²⁶ Sue Williams and John McCullers compared female lawyers to female doctors, secretaries, and medical assistants in 1983 and found that female lawyers had higher "masculinity" scores (which includes competitiveness and aggressiveness), more traditionally masculine play patterns in childhood, and greater unhappiness during adolescence.³²⁷ Even though this study involved only women, it does lend support to the idea that lawyers are more achievement-oriented and "masculine," which includes the traits of competition and aggression, than others.³²⁸

Leonard Chusmir noted that earlier research identified three basic drives which motivate most individuals: the need for power, affiliation, and achievement.³²⁹ The need for achievement can be described as the need to compete against an internal or external standard of excellence.³³⁰ The need for affiliation is the desire for friendship, love, or belonging, and the need for power is the need to lead or have impact on others.³³¹ Chusmir's study found that lawyers are more often achievement motivated, with only moderate needs for power and relatively low needs for affiliation.³³² The study's results further suggest that the more time an attorney spends in court, the more important it is to need power in order to be happy doing the work.³³³ One interesting suggestion Chusmir offers is that law schools, large law firms, and judicial appointments committees might consider motivation testing in order to place or direct law students, new lawyers, and politically appointed judges, respectively, and ensure that they will be "good fits for the position."³³⁴ Chusmir also indicates that motivation training is available and has been successful in changing people's need profile, should lawyers or judges find themselves in jobs which they find unfulfilling.³³⁵

Lawyers' stated goals reflect this achievement orientation and low need for power, as well as a lack of altruism. A survey reported in the American Bar Association Journal in July 1995 stated that lawyers' most important goals were to "do the highest quality work I can" (achievement) and to "be happy with my work" (achievement, personal satisfaction).³³⁶ The least important were to "advance to a position of power" (power) and to "improve the public good" (altruism).³³⁷ Also highly important was to "have time for myself/family," perhaps reflecting the high level of stress and time pressure felt by lawyers.³³⁸

iii. "Thinking" preferred to "Feeling" and other Myers-Briggs personality dimensions

Perhaps the most consistent finding among all studies done of lawyer characteristics is that on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator personality assessment measure ("Myers-Briggs test"),³³⁹ lawyers disproportionately represent the "Thinking" type rather than the "Feeling" type, as compared to the distribution of these two types in the general population. This finding appears to be consistent in studies reported from 1967³⁴⁰ to 1994,³⁴¹ even after the introduction of women into the legal profession.³⁴² Paul Miller found in 1967 that law students' Thinking/Feeling distribution was 72%/28%;³⁴³ Frank Natter found in 1981 a Thinking/Feeling distribution of 63%/37%,³⁴⁴ and Lawrence Richard's 1994 study reported a 76.5%/23.5% Thinking/Feeling distribution among lawyers.³⁴⁵

In a study reported in 1993 by Richard, the Myers-Briggs test was administered to a nationwide sample of 3,014 attorneys.³⁴⁶ Richard's results indicated that attorneys tend to exhibit certain personality characteristics more frequently than others, and that attorneys differ significantly from the general population in the United States.³⁴⁷

Richard's 1993 study concluded that attorneys tend to prefer: (1) Introversion; (2) Intuiting; (3) Thinking; and (4) Judging.³⁴⁸ In each dimension, the distribution of lawyers differed from the general population.³⁴⁹ Specifically, Richard found that the majority of lawyers prefers Introversion and Intuition, while the majority of adults prefers Extraversion and Sensing.³⁵⁰ Lawyers prefer Thinking and Judging even more often than do most people.³⁵¹ These differences between lawyers and the general population may explain, in part, why laypersons tend to perceive lawyers as "different" and why they may be critical of the ways that attorneys approach issues. Lawyers tend to be more logical, unemotional, rational, and objective in making decisions and perhaps less interpersonally oriented than the general population, which might explain why lawyers and their clients at times have trouble interacting with and relating to each other.³⁵²

Richard's study is also unique in that it identifies that the most satisfied lawyers are those who preferred Extraversion, Thinking, and Judging.³⁵³ Although the finding regarding Extraversion is not obvious, the relationship of Thinking and Judging to lawyer job satisfaction is logical, given that these individuals are likely to prefer "logical analysis, principles, cool and impersonal reasoning, and cost/benefit analyses," to be "tolerant of conflict and criticism" (Thinking), and to prefer work involving "structure, schedules, closure on decisions, planning, follow through and a 'cut-to-the-chase' approach" (Judging).³⁵⁴

Two other studies investigated the elements distinguishing successful or effective lawyers from those less successful or less effective.³⁵⁵ The first was performed with eleven lawyers in their seventies, who were all life-long participants in the Terman Study of the Gifted (a study that psychology professor Lewis M. Terman began in 1921 at Stanford University).³⁵⁶ Success was defined by scores on four items: occupational life, marital life, family life, and overall self-fulfillment.³⁵⁷

The study concluded that successful lawyers were more often rated as "contented, fair-minded, sincere, ambitious, competitive, confident, outgoing, sophisticated, intelligent, capable, reasonable, and self controlled."³⁵⁸ Less successful lawyers were more often rated as "cautious, dissatisfied, vulnerable, defensive, depressed, frustrated and lonely."³⁵⁹ The less successful group, overall, appeared to be more neurotic, hostile, and inhibited and less creative, imaginative, and interested in sentimental, "softer" interests.³⁶⁰

The second study, reported in 1985, examined attorneys representing children in protection proceedings.³⁶¹ The study sought to determine which attorneys' involvement produced a beneficial effect. Disappointingly, most of the attorneys appointed to represent the children had no beneficial effect on the outcome of the proceedings.³⁶² However, those who did differed from the rest in that they: (1) spent more time on their cases; and (2) displayed more independence in their role as the child's advocate.³⁶³

Interestingly, and perhaps not by coincidence, much of the research on law students and lawyers since 1980 has focused on their moral development and moral reasoning styles rather than on their personalities.³⁶⁴

Some research in this area adopts Lawrence Kohlberg's stage theory, which theorizes that there are six distinct stages of moral development.³⁶⁵ Movement through these stages normally occurs as a developmental progression throughout life, from relatively immature to increasingly more complex and sophisticated levels of moral reasoning.³⁶⁶

In 1981, Thomas Willging and Thomas Dunn found that law students appear to cluster in Kohlberg's Stages 4 and 5A, with relatively low levels of Stage 2 or 3 reasoning. This was apparently not different from the general population³⁶⁷ or from graduate students in other professional schools.³⁶⁸

In contrast, a 1982 study by Lawrence Landwehr found that practicing attorneys were overwhelmingly clustered at Kohlberg's Stage 4 (Law and Order) morality, which was different from a more scattered distribution across the stages found in the general population and in similarly educated adults.³⁶⁹ Attorneys thus might rely on rules and regulations (Stage 4) more than the general population, and ignore interpersonal concerns (Stage 3) or broad social principles which may override the law (Stage 5).

In 1974, June Louin Tapp and Felice Levine employed a different, non-Kohlbergian method to assess law students' morality.³⁷⁰ Unlike Willging and Dunn, they found that law students' morality differed from that of college students, teachers, and prison inmates.³⁷¹ Law students' morality was consistently more "conventional" (as opposed to "postconventional").³⁷² "Conventional" morality focuses on maintaining social order and conformity and relies on formal rules and the moral conventions approved by the majority within the culture; post-conventional morality emphasizes overriding moral principles such as justice, fairness, equality, and social utility, rather than the formal rules.³⁷³ Kohlberg's Stages 5 and 6 are characteristic of postconventional thought,³⁷⁴ while conventional thought is associated with earlier, less developed Kohlbergian stages.³⁷⁵ Therefore, Tapp and Levine's findings are consistent with Landwehr's "Stage 4" finding for lawyers.

Taken together, Landwehr's and the law student studies do not unequivocally demonstrate that lawyers' moral reasoning differs from that of the general population; there is some evidence, however, consistent with other lawyer attribute studies, suggesting that lawyers' approach to problems and values is significantly more homogeneous and more focused on objective, rational analysis of rules and codified rights than the general population.³⁷⁶ If so, it is likely that the general public misunderstands attorneys and may perceive them as amoral or unprincipled due to this difference in moral reasoning styles of the two groups.

Data regarding the effect of legal education on the moral development of or moral decision-making by law students is very inconsistent. Tapp and Levine found that law school had no effect on law students' moral reasoning³⁷⁷ and Willging and Dunn found no significant change in law students' Kohlbergian moral stage during the first year of law school or after specific ethics courses.³⁷⁸

However, Willging and Dunn found data suggesting that students tended to regress from Stage 5B to 5A during law school.³⁷⁹ In contrast, Hartwell in 1995 found that Kohlbergian stages of law students increased consistently and significantly as a result of certain professional responsibility courses.³⁸⁰

Wagner Thielens in 1969 found that law students' responses to professional ethical dilemmas became more ethical by the end of law school, but became less ethical after graduation.³⁸¹ Thielens' data suggests a regression in legal ethics as a result of practice.³⁸²

Some of these conflicts in data may reflect the situation-dependent reasoning often attributed to law students; some researchers noted that law students' level of moral development differed depending on the context.³⁸³ Also, different research methods may have been employed. Finally, perhaps gender differences in moral reasoning and the number of women included in the various studies explains the inconsistencies.³⁸⁴ Additional research is needed to clarify and reconcile the different results of these studies.

Two studies, one by Janet Taber and the other by Sandra Janoff, consistently discovered gender differences in the moral reasoning and development of law students.³⁸⁵ The first study, by Taber and her colleagues in 1988, found that in terms of an ethical or moral view, female law students tended to rate contextual factors as more important while male law students rated abstract factors more highly.³⁸⁶ Contextual factors were "factors based on relationships, care, and communication,"³⁸⁷ which are consistent with an "ethic of care" or "distinct moral voice" hypothesized to be characteristic of women.³⁸⁸ Abstract factors are "factors relating to rights, logic, and abstract justice."³⁸⁹ Not all contextual factors were important to the women surveyed, perhaps reflecting a case-by-case approach by the women, an emphasis only on contextual factors which were people-oriented, or the socialization of women by legal education to value abstract factors.³⁹⁰

Similarly, Sandra Janoff found in 1989 that the majority of female law students studied displayed an "ethic of care" orientation at the beginning of law school, while significantly more male law students evidenced a "rights" orientation in moral reasoning at the beginning of law school.³⁹¹ An "ethic of care" orientation values interpersonal harmony, maintaining relationships, people's feelings and needs, and preventing harm.³⁹² In an ethic of care, conflicts are resolved by asking what best maintains relationships, what each person needs, and how not to hurt oneself or another.³⁹³ In contrast, a rights orientation focuses on rights, rules, standards, individuality, independence, justice, fairness, objectivity, accomplishments, ambitions, principles, personal beliefs, and freedom from others' interference.³⁹⁴ Dilemmas are resolved by impartially viewing competing claims, determining which values or rights are most important to uphold, and assessing the relative weight of the positive and negative consequences of a decision.³⁹⁵

The rights orientation can be interpreted as consistent with Kohlberg's Stage 4 orientation,³⁹⁶ Richard's Thinking dimen-

sion,³⁹⁷ and Tapp and Levine's conventional reasoning.³⁹⁸ The most important finding by Janoff, however, indicated that there was a significant decrease in the amount of care orientation and a significant increase in the amount of rights orientation exhibited by the law students from the beginning to the end of the first year of law school.³⁹⁹ With respect to gender differences, Janoff found that women's care orientations shifted significantly to a rights orientation during the first year of law school, but that men's orientations did not change significantly, or perhaps became more ingrained.⁴⁰⁰

From these findings, Janoff concluded: (1) that law students "submerge" their care orientations in order to "align with the rights assumptions of law school," suggesting that certain law school contexts tend to "silence" the voice of care;⁴⁰¹ (2) that law school does not accommodate or foster the relational side of human nature;⁴⁰² and (3) that a rights orientation reflects the primary goal of legal education in teaching students to "think like a lawyer," since thinking like a lawyer means focusing on rights and placing oneself in an emotionally neutral state in order to be an advocate.⁴⁰³ The study produced further evidence to suggest that submerging or denying one's care orientation and adopting a rights orientation in order to "fit in" may result in psychological discomfort.⁴⁰⁴ Janoff's findings are not surprising, given that law school is expected to teach students to "think like lawyers," thereby structurally changing students.⁴⁰⁵ What may be surprising are the implications that the moral reasoning style of the legal profession is overwhelmingly masculine (i.e., gender biased),⁴⁰⁶ that law students who do not exhibit a rights orientation prior to law school are dramatically changed by the end of the first year,⁴⁰⁷ and that the legal profession is not likely to change as a result of the addition of women.⁴⁰⁸

Janoff cites Rand Jack and Dana Jack's research that proposed three common responses to the conflict inherent in having an ethic of care orientation and becoming a lawyer: (1) denying the conflict, denying one's care orientation, and disowning one's emotional, relational self; (2) splitting one's personality so that the emotional, relational side operates in one's personal and family life and one's logical, analytical side operates at work; and (3) attempting to change the lawyer's role and lawyering to incorporate a care orientation.⁴⁰⁹ Simply denying the conflict is not likely to work, and is likely to result in an individual's need for substance abuse or workaholism to maintain the suppression of their emotional side.⁴¹⁰ Janoff notes that Jack and Jack reported that the second response of personality splitting does not resolve the conflict; the individual continues to experience discomfort.⁴¹¹ Therefore, the third response focusing on a care orientation appears to be the only potentially successful solution. This response, however, is rarely used (as it was adopted by only two of eighteen women in Jack and Jack's study),⁴¹² and is likely to be difficult to implement single-handedly.⁴¹³ Interestingly, this third, rare response is one of the most widely touted solutions to the professionalism crisis.⁴¹⁴

Law students come to law school with a set of preexisting personality traits. For example, they may be more interested in school than others and tend to emphasize active behavior, initiating action affecting their environment rather than being passive or reactive. They may have better leadership and social skills than others, even as elementary school children, but be less interested in emotional concerns and the feelings of others. Pre-law students appear to have greater needs for assuming roles of leadership and dominance and for securing attention, and appear to be less subordinate or deferential than other pre-professional students.⁴¹⁵ They do not appear to experience a greater degree of psychological distress than the general population.⁴¹⁶ Research suggests that women may have had unhappy adolescent experiences; men may have had strong, dominant fathers. Pre-law students tend to be interested in being active and dominant, particularly in school settings.

Pre-law students tend to select the field of law primarily because of an interest in the subject matter and a desire for intellectual stimulation; however, money and prestige are also important, usually more so than altruistic or public service concerns.⁴¹⁷ There are distinct gender differences in reported reasons for going to law school which appear to be connected to social acceptability of money orientation in men, but not in women.⁴¹⁸ Women's motives appear to be more altruistic and less financially oriented than are men's.⁴¹⁹ These motives suggest that lawyers value education, intellectual achievement, status, and materialism, although more women than men may value altruism and public service. Lawyers' early needs for dominance may have been channeled into valuing academic or intellectual superiority, money, and status by the time they enter law school.⁴²⁰ However, women may seek dominance for the purpose of helping others rather than for self-fulfillment purposes.⁴²¹ Although lawyers seek roles of leadership and dominance, which would imply a need to maintain power "over others," these drives may not necessarily be oriented towards others.⁴²² Rather, they appear to reflect a need for personal excellence and perhaps the admiration of others.⁴²³

Pre-law students, law students, and lawyers are uniformly less interested in people, in emotions, and interpersonal concerns.⁴²⁴ In fact, evidence suggests that humanistic, people-oriented individuals do not fare well, psychologically or academically, in law school or in the legal profession.⁴²⁵ Law students and lawyers overwhelmingly (male and female) display an orientation (Janoff's "rights" orientation and Richard's Thinking dimension) toward rights and justice, logic, thinking, and rationality without regard to their personal values.⁴²⁶ They tend not to apply their personal values to problems nor do they usually consider interpersonal harmony or humanistic concerns in making decisions.⁴²⁷ There is evidence that some of this orientation may result from the socialization process of law school, occurring even as early as the first year.⁴²⁸

Lawyer attributes documented only during law school or thereafter are the following: a great emphasis on logic, thinking, rationality, justice, fairness, rights, and rules; a low interest in people, emotional concerns, and interpersonal matters; a low level of altruism; sociability; authoritarianism; a great need for achievement; masculine traits such as competitiveness and aggression; and insecurity, defensiveness, anxiety, internal discomfort, and higher than normal levels of psychiatric distress. Some of these traits are developed in or amplified by law school.

Law school appears to alter at least some characteristics and attitudes of law students. Those who come to law school with a "rights" orientation, somewhat similar to Richard's Thinking dimension, are either unchanged or graduate with this orientation further ingrained.⁴²⁹ Those who come to law school with an "ethic of care," perhaps linked to Richard's Feeling dimension, appear to adopt a rights orientation by the end of the first year.⁴³⁰ Cynicism about the legal profession increases and opinions of lawyers and the legal system become more guarded and negative by the end of the first year of law school, but an elitist protectiveness of the profession also emerges.⁴³¹ There is evidence, although not entirely uncontroverted, that law students' altruism and interest in public service decrease more than do other professionals' as a result of professional school and practice.⁴³² Law students' interest in professional private practice with a small firm tends to increase and interest in public service positions decreases.⁴³³ Students also tend to become less intellectual (i.e., less philosophical and introspective, and less interested in abstractions, ideas, and the scientific method), perhaps in favor of more realistic, practical values.⁴³⁴ Law school may increase competitiveness, aggression, and ambition (perhaps in reaction to increased tension and anxiety). However, lawyers' competitiveness, aggressiveness, need for academic achievement, and low interest in emotions are likely to have been present prior to law school, even though they may be amplified and increased by the legal education process.

Law students tend to come from a socioeconomically elite and privileged background and have more liberal political beliefs than the general population.⁴³⁵ Women law students may be more dominant, aggressive, and masculine, and be more achievement oriented than other women students.⁴³⁶ Law students tend to see themselves as more argumentative than others and may indeed be more competitive.⁴³⁷ They are also more authoritarian than other professional students.⁴³⁸

Despite a panoply of dominant, confident, and self-assured attributes, found in both pre-law students and law students, law students appear to be internally conflicted. They outwardly project a self-confident image, while internally they feel awkward, defensive, and insecure.⁴³⁹ This conflict may develop in law school. Despite findings that law students are more extroverted, sociable, and masculine than other professional students,⁴⁴⁰ these characteristics may diminish and students may become less dominant, confident, and sociable during the course of law school.⁴⁴¹ At least since 1970, studies have consistently found that law students report an unusually high level of stress, psychiatric symptoms, substance abuse, anxiety, depression, and internal conflict soon after beginning law school.⁴⁴² They develop a greater than average amount of psychological distress during the first year of law school which continues after graduation, manifesting itself primarily as anxiety, depression, obsessive-compulsive symptomatology, isolation, and paranoia.⁴⁴³ These problems do not appear to develop until the first semester of law school; however, there may be pre-existing internal conflicts or troublesome traits such as tension or alienation which contribute to the quick and dramatic development of these problems during the first year of law school.

It is unclear if the internal conflict between outer image and inner persona develops during the first year of law school, or if it predates law school and causes the distress exhibited during the first year and beyond. There is evidence to suggest that law students' distress is associated with interpersonal concerns, a failure to utilize social systems as support despite their traits of sociability and extroversion, and an excessive use of thinking as a coping strategy.⁴⁴⁴ As students progress through law school, they appear to deal with these stresses through increased substance abuse (but not suicide) and by becoming alienated or more aggressive and ambitious as law school progresses.⁴⁴⁵

Further, it is unclear whether these problems are manifesting primarily in female, minority, and other nontraditional students (i.e., those who do not have the white male law student's typical attributes prior to law school) who may feel a need to change and conform in law school. Janoff's work suggests that women and minorities exhibit values and a thinking and moral decision-making style different from the law school norm, experience pressure to adopt the norm, and develop great anxiety and distress as a result.⁴⁴⁶ Additional research is necessary to determine whether law students who are different from the law student norm prior to entering law school are those who experience the high levels of psychiatric distress found by Benjamin and his colleagues.

Lawyers have been studied less frequently than law students. Lawyers appear to be more competitive, aggressive, and achievement-oriented, and overwhelmingly Thinkers (instead of Feelers), as compared to the general population. Women lawyers are more achievement-oriented, competitive, and aggressive than other women professionals and laypersons.⁴⁴⁷ Both male and female lawyers are more competitive than people in other occupations.⁴⁴⁸ Lawyers are more often motivated by a need for achievement than are others, which includes a need to compete against an internal or external standard of intelligence.⁴⁴⁹ They tend to display a disproportionate preference for the personality dimensions of Introversion, Intuition, Thinking, and Judging more than the general population,⁴⁵⁰ and tend to be more homogeneous in personality type than the general population.⁴⁵¹ Currently, lawyers are experiencing significantly higher levels of psychological distress (depression, substance abuse, etc.) than the general population.⁴⁵² This is a fairly sparse amount of information about the attorney personality, yet it is almost entirely consistent with the research on law students (and even pre-law students).

Lawyers are often believed to reason differently than the general population. While there is evidence to suggest that their stage of moral development and decision-making styles may be more homogeneous than the general population and more focused on maintaining rules, regulations, social order, and conformity,⁴⁵³ there is also evidence that their stage of moral development does not differ from the moral development of other similarly educated adults,⁴⁵⁴ and that law school has no real effect on their level of moral development.⁴⁵⁵ Conflicts in the data on the effects of law school may be explained by gender differences.⁴⁵⁶ For example, recent studies reveal that while law school may have no effect on male students' approach to morality, it dramatically shifts female students' orientations from an ethic of care and compassion to an orientation similar to that of men, which typically emphasizes a rights and justice orientation.⁴⁵⁷ Also, results of studies using Kohlberg's methodology may not be applicable to women, to the extent that Kohlberg's theories have been criticized as inadequate to assess women's moral development.⁴⁵⁸ There is also evidence to suggest that lawyers' moral reasoning may differ depending on the situation and the context of the problem presented.⁴⁵⁹

Successful and satisfied lawyers appear to have pragmatic reasons for entering law school, prefer Extraversion, Thinking, and Judging, have less neuroses, and have a broader range of interests than less successful attorneys. Effective lawyering in some cases is related to amount of time spent on cases and how active the attorney's role is in the representation.

Many of the implications of the empirical research reviewed herein can be related to the specific problems in the legal profession today. It is this author's contention that the above-listed lawyer attributes are an entirely overlooked part of the tripartite crisis in the legal profession. First, it will be important to determine which of the lawyer attributes are likely to be causally related to the problems in the legal profession. This may help explain why the problems have arisen. Second, whether the troublesome attributes are pre-existing or are a product of legal education will indicate how difficult they may be to change, and whether changes to legal education are likely to have any effect on the problems.⁴⁶⁰ Certain of the empirically-demonstrated lawyer attributes, described above, will be related to each of the three problems in turn.⁴⁶¹

The lack of public esteem for lawyers may be directly related to the notion that lawyers think and value things differently than does the general population. What lawyers consider to be important, proper, and moral may be considerably different from their clients. These differences are likely to cause a gap in understanding, even a diffe