Law School Study for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas from Southwestern-Nevada Law Review

LAW SCHOOL STUDY FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA. LAS VEnASf Willard H. Pedrick* Lome Seidman** I. NEVADA; POPULATION, ECONOMY, UNIVERSITY Reliable statistics describe Nevada from 1920 to the presetit, and these figures Illustrate that pronounced changes have occurred with respect to the nature, size and distribution of the State's population. In 1920, 77,407 people resided in Nevada, and this population was widely scattered - 6.3 per cent of the population resided in Clark County 29.6 per cent in what is now Carson City, Washoe and Douglas Counties— 19.7 per cent of the State's population lived in urban areas and Nevada's urban rank in 1920 was 44th. Nevada's average population density per square mile was a lonely 0.7. Ai.K Statistical profile of Nevada has changed dramatically Although Nevada is the most arid State in the Union, its population has increased in number at a remarkable rate, and the distribution of this population has also undergone significant change. .1. '" J , ^ lu liuic, nowever, mat law buildings are not cosOy buildings, as academic buildings go. They do not house scientific laboratories and, accordingly, their costs are in line with the cost of academic structures designed for the humanities and liberal arts. (2) The Law Library. An additional item of capital cost, of course, is the law library-a principal research tool for the law faculty, for many of the University faculty for the law students (particularly the student editors of the Law Journal), agencies of government and members of the Bench and Bar who will turn to the Law School Library with its research capabilities when necessity requires. A Law School aspiring to compare favorably with the prestige schools of the West and of the strongest schools on the list which have supplied graduates for the Nevada Bar must surely aspire to a Law Library with legal research capabilities. In concrete terms, this means rapid progress towards a Law Library of 100,000 volumes and an intermediate goal, perhaps within the first decade, of reaching a 150,000-volume size In $500 000 to $600,000 with an annual capital allowance for continuing development of the collection of at least $100,000 per year in terms of 1974- 75 dollars. The significance and value of a first-rate, legal-research Law Library cantiot be overestimated. A Law Library is costly, and it will continue to be costly. But, to have in the State, at least one Law Library complete as a working Law Library with duplicate sets of continuations for student use with substantial research capabilities in terms of the statutory and decisional law of this country and some international law, together with the legal periodicals and major treatises in all legal fields, including looseleaf services, will be an immeasurable value-first, of course, to the instructional and research programs of the law school, to the University in connection with the interdisciplinary research, to the practicing profession and, in a very real sense, to the people of the State of Nevada. fortunate, indeed, that a substantial private gift in the amount of $300,^ has been pledged as a capital contribution towards a Law Library for a University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Law School. That gift, perhaps enlarged by other similar grants, will provide the impetus for development of a truly significant Law Library with research capabilities. It will, to that extent, relieve the State and, thereby, reduce the initial costs of starting up he new Law School. As a practical matter, this means that the State Law Library capital contribution can be started and continued at a relatively leyel amount. Thus, $100,000 a year of State money in current dollars should 2148 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW |Vol. 10 enable a satisfactory beginning in the development of the l^aw Library collection. It must be pointed out, however, that inflation has been felt, particularly on the cost of law books. After the initial serial acquisitions, a cost, in terms of acquisition and processing, of $20 per volume reflects current experience. 2. Some Comments on Law School Size, Faculty Size and Salary Levels. First of all, the point needs to be made that professional legal education, as graduate education, though not cheap, is still relatively economical as compared to other types of graduate instruction. In the Mountain States Region, for example, per-student costs of legal education, over a period of years, have averaged only about 50 per cent higher than the cost of the undergraduate program. In many disciplines, particularly in science and even more so in medicine, it is common for graduate instructional costs to run from three to four or five times the average per-student cost for undergraduate education. Financial costs contemplated for a University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Law School assume a relatively heavy teaching load for law teachers, with a faculty-student ratio in the 1-15 range and a teaching faculty of approximately 15 full-time teachers, together with a Dean, a Director for the Law Library, an Associate Dean, a Director of Clinical Education, a Director (part-time) of Continuing Education and a Director (part-time) for a Legal Research Center. The total professional law staff would be in the range of 19 to 21 to serve the Law School envisaged in its early years as ranging from 200-250 students for all three classes (based on an assumed entering class of 70 to 90). It should be noted that legal education is moving toward larger law faculties in relationship to the size of the student body. Experience is demonstrating that, to conduct clinical legal education, giving the law student a real life encounter with clients and, thereby, assisting the practicing Bar in providing legal services for the ptoor in both civil and criminal matters, requires close faculty supervision. No more than ten students can be assigned a clinic law teacher, and that figure may be high. On another front, beginning attempts at interdisciplinary teaching and research make it clear that some increment of teaching staff is required to mount these activities. Finally, the provision of instruction within the Law School in "Lawyering Skills," such as drafting, negotiating, interviewing and counseling, requires working with a smaller number of students if the student is to learn by doing and re-doing. Thus, a law faculty-student ratio of 15-1, presently regarded as reasonably satisfactory, will almost surely prove inadequate in the future. Nothing like the ratios of medical education 1978] LAW SCHOOL STUDY 2149 of 2-1 or worse (or better, depending on one's viewpwint) are contemplated for legal education. We will, undoubtedly, however, move toward the 10-1 ratio. It is recognized that Nevada is young and not yet a truly wealthy State. On the other hand, it has ambitions for its own future and, on that basis, a strong and adequately-financed Law School is envisaged. At the same time, the program of the school and its administration must be conducted with concern for the last cent of educational value from each dollar expanded. A significant item in the total Law School operating budget is, of course, law faculty salaries. The financial projections made here with resp)ect to Law School operating costs have taken, not the high-salary schools of the East Coast or the West Coast but, rather, the strong Law Schools of the Mountain States Region as providing the competitive standard against which plans should be made for salaries of administrators and teachers. A survey of salaries paid at the leading Law Schools of the Mountain States Region (including the Universities of Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Denver, New Mexico and Utah) is based on figures supplied through the Section of Legal Education of the American Bar Association. (Individual schools are not identified by name to protect the confidentiality of the data supplied on that basis): DATA ON MOUNTAIN STATE LA W FACULTY SALARIES FOR 1973-74, SECTION OF LEGAL EDUCATION, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION REPORTS Director of Law Sctiool Dean Law Library Law Faculty (Itighest) (median) 1 $34,000 $24,500 $32,3.50 $20,200 2 33,000 20,600 33,675 26,050 3 not available not available 33,.500 23,500 * 33,700 22,000 27,000 17,200 not available 27,120 32,800 20,000 6 .37,500 28,000 29,500 21,000 To be compietitive in the Mountain States Region, for the year 1975-76 and thereafter, will call for salaries in the range reflected in the budgetary material above presented, if the Law School at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, is to be compietitive with the other strong schools of the Mountain States Region. That is the price of quality legal education. It is a lower price than one can find in the East, the Midwest or the West Coast. It is this element of lower salary and wage costs that enables achievement of high quality legal education in this Region for significantly fewer dollars than required in other sections of the country. 2150 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW (Vol. 10 V. CAN NEVADA AF FORD A FJRST-RATE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL NOW? It requires no great flash of insight to observe that, while large geographically, Nevada is one of our smallest States—in terms of population. Numbering, in 1970, about 490,0(K) residents its current population, in 1974, is estimated at between 575,000 and 600,0(X). There are only four States of the 50 smaller in population. On the other hand, U.S. Department of Commerce figures, for the calendar year of 1971, indicate that only three States in the Nation—Alaska, New York and Connecticut—had higher percapita personal income than did Nevada that year. In terms of state expenditures on institutions of higher education, the Department of Commerce figures for 1972 indicate that Nevada did not lead the parade. In fact, its 1972 state expenditures on higher education amounted to $15.98 per $1000 of personal income, which placed it in 31st position out of the 50 states, as respects the ratio of state expienditures on state institutions of higher education in relation to personal income of the residents of the State. It seems fair to observe that Nevadans, in the tradition of their New England forebearers, restrain their enthusiasm for taxation and, consequently, at least as compared with some other states, have capabilities for somewhat increased support of higher education, if they have the will. The question whether it is feasible for the State of Nevada to establish and operate a quality Law School at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, now is a public or political question to be decided in the first instance by the Regents and, of course, by the Nevada State Legislature. Other states, in fact, all but six of the other states of the United States, have already resolved that question in favor of the establishment and operation of a State University Law School to serve the public through education of students for careers in law and through the improvement in the administration of justice in the many ways open to a modern, full-function law school. Some perspective on the problem as to whether the time is ripe to undertake to provide opportunity for legal education for young Nevadans in Nevada may be had by cotnparing the setting for three strong Law Schools of the Mountain States Region established at varying dates. First of all, consideration might be given to the Law School at the University of Utah. Now enrolling 399 students, the University of Utah Law School, in legal education circles and in the legal profession at large, is regarded as an excellent Law School. Founded in 1915, it was accredited by the American Bar Association in 1927 and by the Association of American Law Schools in 1929. In 1930, Utah had a population of 508,000. Even in 1970, the State of Utah was still in 39th position as respects its rank among the states in per-capita personal income. The point is that in 1929, three 1978] LAW SCHOOL STUDY 2151 years after ABA accreditation and the very year of AALS accreditation, the Utah support base was very much less than the support base now available for establishing a Law School by the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. A similar comparison can be made with the University of New Mexico Law School. Organized in 1947, it was accredited by the Association of American Law Schools the following year, 1948. That year. New Mexico had a total population of about 600,000. The total personal income for residents of New Mexico in 1950 was $800,000,000, with a per-capita income of $1,331. More recently, in 1971, the personal income of Nevada's then 500,000 residents, totaling $2,460,000,000 (and $4,822 per capita), compares with New Mexico's 1971 figure of $3,448,000,000 for a population in that State of 1,045,000. Finally, reference may be made to the founding of the Arizona State University College of Law in the Fall of 1967. At that time, the total personal income for residents of Arizona was about $4,000,000,000 and the population was about 1,500,000. If account be taken of the fact that there was already a Law School at the University of Arizona, enrolling approximately 500 law students, it seems appropriate to divide the Arizona population and personal income by half to arrive at the population and income base available for support of the new, second State University Law School. On this basis, it would follow that total personal income available from half to Arizona for the support of the new Arizona State University College of Law would have totaled $2,000,000,000 from a population base of 750,000 (and the State has a new full-fledged Medical School). These figures compare with the 1974 estimated population of Nevada of 575,000 to 600,000 and total personal income in 1971 of 2.4 billion dollars. The question whether Nevada can presently afford the financial costs associated with establishment of a first-rank, full-dimension University Law School may be regarded a close one. It certainly would not be wildly unreasonable to contend that the population and economic base is still not quite adequate for the costs entailed. On the other hand, if one compares the establishment of the Law Schools of the University of Utah, the University of New Mexico and the more recent establishment of Arizona State University's College of Law, it can fairly be said that Nevada would appear to have an adequate population base and an adequate economic base, if it has the desire to create such an institution for the benefit of the people of the State. Whether it has the desire probably depends, in the first instance at least, on the University Regents and their judgment in relation to the functions to be served by a first-rank, full-dimension University Law School in the State of Nevada. Those functions have been enumerated from time to time in earlier passages of this Report. They include provision of more equal 2152 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 10 opportunity for legal education for young Nevadans, the establishment of a center for legal scholarship for ongoing improvement and development of the State's legal system, the provision of law graduates trained at a level of excellence to serve in the many roles open to those of the profession in the private practice, in provision of legal services for the poor, in administering the affairs of government at every level, in contributing to the continuing education of the profession and, finally, and not the least of these, enrichment of the programs of the University of Nevada System by bringing to them that discipline which represents the art of infusing reason into the ongoing development of the processes of governance. The question is really how ambitious is the University of Nevada System for the State. The State certainly can continue as it has in the past without the kind of contributions it could properly expect to come from a first-rank, full-fledged University Law School. Its legal profession can be supplied, as can its government offices, by the graduates of out-of-state schools. But, is that the right course for Nevada in the 1970s? VJ. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION From the analysis and data that have preceded this formal recommendation, the nature of the conclusions to be offered has emerged. It is our recommendation that the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, at once begin establishment of a first-rank, full-dimension Law School—but only if the University and the people of the State are prepared to provide the necessary level of financial support for a Law School of this quality. The factors that prompt this recommendation have been developed in detail in earlier passages. They may be summarized as follows: I A University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Law School would: (a) provide more adequate opportunity for young Nevadans, including young people who are poor and those from minority groups, to secure legal education; (b) provide a center for continuing study and research by legal scholars and law students of the developing legal institutions of the Stale of Nevada for the benefit of the latter; (c) provide law-trained graduates to supply society's needs for the skills of well-trained lawyers in government at every level, in traditional private practice, in provision of legal services on matters both civil and criminal for the poor and the underserved middle class, in business offices, both legal and administrative, and in the infinite variety of assignments where the skills of analysis, of organization, of conciliation, of advocacy and sensitivity to procedure make for greater effectiveness; I978J LA W SCHOOL STUDY 2153 (d) provide a resource for continuing education of the legal profession and law-related callings such as law enforcement, trust administration, etc.; (e) enrich and enlarge the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, academic and research programs by the addition to the academic community of scholars and students with capabilities for contribution to joint di.scipline enterprises in both research and teaching; (f) provide a Law Library for the State of Nevada with research capabilities for the benefit of the government and citizen alike. 2. The State of Nevada has the present ability to support a Law School capable of discharging the functions above described. Though its population is probably less than 600,000 and its economy yielded personal income at a level of just $2,400,000,000 in 1971, Nevada could undertake establishment of a fine State University Law School if it wants to do so. We know how the leadership of other small states feel about their law schools. As evidenced by the extracts from letters from Bar Presidents University Presidents and State Supreme Court Judges (reproduced in the Appendix), the small states with law schools value those law schools highly. To consider going back to the day when their slates had no law schools of their own would, in their view, be unthinkable. In the past 14 years, there has been a dramatic increase in the enrollment of the law schools of this country. In that period of time, total enrollment at ABA-approved schools moved to the 1973 figure of I()6,I02 students, an increase of 66,000 law students over the 14-year period. In 1973, five new law schools were granted provisional or final approval. At the ABA Mid-Year Meeting in Houston, Texas, on February of 1974, the House of Delegates granted provisional approval to an additional five new law schools—including, in that number, the J. Reuben Clark School of Law of Brigham Young University, Franklin Pierce Law Center, Franklin Pierce College, Southern Illinois University School of Law, University of Hawaii at Manoa School of Law and Western New England College Law School bringing the number of approved law schools in the United States to 156. In his projections of law school enrollments for the years that lie ahead. Professor Vaughn Ball of the University of Georgia Law School predicts that, in 1978-79, there will be 48,000 first-year law students enrolled. That figure will represent an increase in the ranks of enrolled first-year law students of about 8,000 young people. Some of the new first-year places will come from expansion of the existing schools. If all the places were created by establishment of new schools, it would require nearly 50 new law schools, with first-year classes of 150 students each, to receive the increase 2154 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 10 of 8,000 new entering first-year law students. Against this expectation of further substantial increases in the capacity of the country's law schools and in their number, will any state forego the resulting benefits from having at least one law school within the state to serve the interests of aspiring students and the common good? As put recently by Dean Roger Cramton of the Cornell University Law School, "Law has long been regarded as a 'public' profession which provides a substantial proportion of leaders in our government and in the private sector, and law graduates provide many forms of uncompensated and undercompensated public service. Moreover, law school faculties contribute to the advancement of law through research efforts, legislative drafting, advocacy before courts and commissions and the like. Today, law schools are increasingly involved in direct public service through various clinical programs. These and other public benefits of legal education deserve systematic attention in designing future funding arrangements for legal education." From the standpoint of those who live in states with law schools, it is anomalous that the State of Nevada has managed to do without. The State will, assuredly, one day have a University of Nevada, Las Vegas, School of Law. Ought that time to be longer delayed? In terms of its obligation to its young people and to all the people of the State, can Nevada afford not to have a first-rank, full-dimension University Law School now! 1978) LAW SCHOOL STUDY 2155 APPENDIX. PART 1. PRINCIPAI. SOURCES USF.O IN TE:XT. American Bar Association, Section of Legal Education, Review of Legal Education, 1973. American Bar Association, Task Force on Professional Utilization (1972) (mimeo, p. 34). Chairman William Reece Smith, Jr. Antioch Law School Feasibility Study (1971). Association of American Law Schools, Association (December, 1971) Information. L By-Laws of the Association of American Law Schools, Inc. 11. Executive Committee Regulations. Boden, Dean Robert F., Talk, "The Role of the Organized Bar in Solving the Problem of Vastly Increased Law School Enrollments with No Corresponding Increase in the Job Market for Law School Graduates, National Conference of Bar Presidents, August 11, 1972. Boyer and Cramton, "American Legal Education: An Agenda for Research and Reform, " 59 Cornell Law Review 221 (1974). Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, Graduate and Professional Education through 1980 (1970). "Challenge to Leadership," a Report to the Trustees by the President's Commission on the Feasibility of a Law School for the University of Bridgeport (1971). Chronicle of Higher Education Cramton, "Legal Education Faces the Future," 1974 Cornell Law Forum at 2-7. Gallup Opinion Index, December 1973. Guideline Statement on the Establishment of New Law Schools, Association of American Law Schools (1967). Hawaii Law School Study, Legislative Reference Bureau Report Number 3, 1971. State of Hawaii. Lawyer's Statistical Report, 1971, American Bar Foundation. College Educated Workers, 1968-70, A Study of Supply and Demand (1970). Bulletin 1676, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 15-16. 2156 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 10 PART II. NATIONAL DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS. Appendix. 1. Law School Admission Test Program. 2. Law Schcwl Admission Test Council Chart. 3. Legal Education and Bar Admission Statistics—1963-1973. 4. Projection of law school graduates. 5. College Students' Surveys of Interest in Law Study. a. Gallup Poll Opinion Index, December, 1973. b. ACE, Research Report. The First Year of College: A Follow-up. c. ETS., "The Graduates" (1973), at p. 18, Education Plans of Senior Survey Sale, 1971. 6. Projections of numbers of 22-year-olds in population. 7. National: Population-lawyer ratio, 1948-1970. 9. Population per lawyer in private practice—smaller states. 10. Ratio of lawyers to Gross National Product, 1950-80. 11. Increasing proportion of personal income in the United States going for legal services, 1950-71. 12. Extract from Cantor and Rose, The Escalation in Salaries of Law School Graduates, 19 Practical Lawyer, 63, 64 (1973). 13. Extract from Report on National Law Placement Conference of June, 1974, by Ms. Virginia Stewart, ASU Law Placement Office. 14. Table 26.—Earned First Professional Degrees, by Field of Study: United States, 1960-61 to 1981-82. 1978] LAW SCHOOL STUDY 2L57 I. Law School Admission Test Program. a z zs -T Number of enrolled firat yesr awatudenta Numberof deffreeain law — • "T" / / / f / / / / 1 1 •• ST, 714 ) > / s s i s - - 1 325 1300 275 250 225 1125 jo-o — 875 850 825 700 675 575 550 525 500 475 450 425 400 375 350 325 300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 Source: Educational Testing Service (1973). 2158 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 10 2. Law School Admission Test Council Chart. From the Law School Admission Test Council, Annual Report for 1973 at p. 92, with added data. Numlierof ni..„u e r, ,, ,,,. .. Numberof iinrolledrirst- NumberofLaw Numberof LSDAS Year Year Law StudenU Degrees Conferred LSAT Candidates Registrants 1947-48 1948-49 1949-50 19,50-51 1951-52 1952-53 1953-54 1954-55 1955-56 1956-57 1957-58 1958-59 1959-60 1960-61 1961-62 1962-63 196,3-64 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 l%8-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 197,5-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 (Actual) 23,963 21,542 19,461 17,295 14,700 14,458 15,729 16,137 16,771 15,842 16,169 17,105 17,031 17,698 19,746 22,930 25,515 26,508 26,720 25,746 30.719 36,642 37,538 37,724 35,136 37.018 (Projections) 39,680 41,860 43.720 46,350 48,080 6,882 1.3,942 7,655 13,891 8,037 13,926 6,748 12,158 6,588 10,923 7,557 8,976 8,653 7,937 10,158 7,994 11,755 8,559 12,770 9,153 14,846 9,661 17,374 9,073 20,903 9,252 23,800 9,434 25,878 9,633 31,691 11,249 37,598 12,257 39,503 13,859 45,268 1.5,.522 47,458 16,959 50,793 17,240 60,503 17„586 77,900 17,477 107,147 22,579 121,871 27.756 122.702 130,000' 153,110 166,550 183,500 196,300 214,040 100,724 100,765 110,000* Explanation and References. Data as to the number of enrolled first-year law students were obtained from issues of the Journal of Legal Education, and were plotted so that, for example, the 19,461 law school students enrolled in September, 1950, are shown for the period 1950-51. Data on the number of degrees in law is obtained from Review of Legal Education: Law Schools and Bar Admission Requirements in the United States, published by the Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar of the American Bar Association. 1978] LA W SCHOOL STUDY 2159 Number of candidates taking the LSAT includes those tested during the academic year, in the period shown; repeaters are included. The number of J.D. or LL.B. degrees for 1973 is taken from the 1973 Review of Legal Education, American Bar Association, p. 48. This chart is reproduced in these Appendices, Pt. II,#3. The figures of that chart do not agree precisely with those of the present chart but the differences are of no real significance for present purposes. The A.B. A. figures are for approved schools only. • Figures for the number of Law School Data Assembly Service registrations are actual figures for 1971-72, 1972-73, and an estimate for 1973-74, supplied by the Educational Testing Service. Minutes of the Law School Admission Test Council, Services Committee Meeting of March 8- 9, 1974. Data below the line represents projections prepared by Prof. Vaughn Ball, now of the University of Georgia School of Law, Consultant to the Educational Testing Service—the acknowledged expert as respects prediction of numbers of future LSAT administrations and the numbers of future first-year law students. It should be pointed out that, whereas, figures for law school enrollment overall, first-year enrollment and degrees awarded represent actual individuals, the figures on the number of LSAT administrations does not establish the number of persons who in a given year take the LSAT. A considerable number of persons take the LSAT two or more times. Unofficially, the number of LSAT repeaters is now estimated to run as high as 40%. Accordingly, the figures that are most meaningful as regards the actual numbers of young people interested in pursuing law study are the number who register with the LSDAS, thereby, signifying their desire to have their LSAT scores and college records sent to the law schools of their designation. 2160 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 10 3. Legal Education and Bar Admission Statistics—1963-1973. LEGAL EDUCATION AND BAR ADMISSION STATISTICS 1963-1973 Enrollment Firet Year Total Women Year 1963 49,552 1,883 20,776 1964 54,265 2,183 22,753 1965 59,744 2,537 24,167 1966 62,556 2,678 24,077 1967 64,406 2,906 24,267 1968 62,779 3,704 23,652 1969 68,386 4,715 29,128 1970 82,499 7,031 34,713 1971 94,468 8,914 36,171 1972 101,707 12,173 35,131 1973 106,102 16,760 37,018 New LSAT J.D. or LL.B. Admiesione indidatee Awarded to the Bar 30,528 9,638 10,788 37,598 10,491 12,023 39,406 11,507 13,109 44,905 13,115 14,644 47,110 14,738 16,007 49,756 16,077 17,764 59,050 16,733 19,123 74,092 17,183 17,922 107,479 17,006 20,485 119,694 22,342 25,086 121,262 27,756 30,075* NOTES: Enrollment is that in American Bar Association approved school as of October 1: The LSAT candidate volume is given for the test year ending in the year stated. Thus, 121,262 administrations of the LSAT occurred in the test year July, 1972, through April, 1973. J.D. or LL.B. degrees are those awarded by approved schools for the academic year ending in the year stated. Thus, 27,756 degrees were awarded in the year beginning with the fall, 1972 term and ending with the summer, 1973 term. Total new admissions to the Bar are for the 1972 calendar year and include those admitted by office study, diploma privilege, and examination and study at an unapproved law school, the great bulk of those admitted were graduated from approved schools. * L.A. Daily Journat, fi-lO-lA. Source: ABA Section of Legal Education, 1973 Review of Legal Education. 1978] LAW SCHOOL STUDY 2161 4. Projection of law school graduates. High and Low Projections of Law School Graduates Based on Student Demand laow Projection High Projeccibn lA) (B) (C'l (D'l (Eu (F-) (C) (D") (E'l (FY) No of C B.IUO C HxlOO Pro|ection No of Firat P.rOntof Pruiection PerCeniof PerCentof c PerCentof Male Year Male B Firat Year No of Male No of Firel Year Bachelor'* Law Bach Entry Nil ufl^w l^w Student* Fir*t Year Bach Enir LawSchuol LawSiudenia Degree Student* LawSchuol .SchI Crad* Oiad m Law Student* l.awSchool Orads (trad in YM,V Recipienii YearY YearY YearY >3 YearY *3 YearY YearY YearY'3 YearY*3 1956 178,000 16,697 9.4% 9,429 56.5% 16,697 9.4% 9,429 56.5% 1957 200,000 16,083 8.0 8,653 53.8 16,083 8.0 8,653 53.8 1958 219,000 16,651 7.6 9,261 55.6 16,651 7.6 9,261 55.6 1959 230,000 16,667 7.2 9,434 56.6 16,667 7.2 9,434 56.6 1960 230,000 17,030 7.4 9,948 58.4 17,030 7.4 9,948 58.4 1961 230,000 17,886 7.8 10,828 60.5 17,886 7.8 10,828 60.5 1962 236,000 20,012 8.5 11.792 58.9 20,012 8.5 11,792 58.9 1963 247,000 22,933 9.3 13,600 59.3 22,933 9.3 13,600 59.5 1964 272,000 25.267 aj 15,000 59.3 25,267 9=3 15,200 60.1 1965 290.000 26,100 9.0 15,500 59.3 26,100 9.0 15,800 60.7 1966 295,000 26,550 9.0 15,700 59.3 27,140 9.2 16,600 61.3 1967 314,000 28,260 9.0 16,800 59.3 29,516 9.4 18,300 61.9 1968 361,000 32,490 9.0 19,300 59.3 34,650 9.6 21,700 62.5 1969 398,000 35,820 9.0 21,200 59.3 39,004 9.8 24,600 63.1 1970 418,000 37,620 9.0 22,300 59.3 41,800 10.0 26,600 63.7 1971 422,000 37,980 9.0 22,500 59.3 43,044 10.2 27,700 64.3 1972 464,000 41,760 9.0 24,800 59.3 48,256 10.4 31,300 64.9 1973 476,000 42,840 9.0 25,400 59.3 50,456 10.6 33,000 65.5 1974 499,000 44,910 9.0 26,600 59.3 53,892 10.8 35,600 66.1 1975 518,000 46,620 9.0 27,600 59.3 56,980 11.0 38,000 66.7 1976 537,000 48,330 9.0 28,700 59.3 60,144 11.2 40,500 67.3 1977 557,000 50,130 9.0 29,700 59.3 63,498 11.4 43,100 67.9 All underscores indicate end of actual numbers and beginning of projections. See following page for "Sources by Column". Underscores show end of actual numbers: projections are extrapolations of the past trends in the base population, enrollments and degrees awarded at lower levels. First professional degrees in medicine, law and the like are excluded. Note both high and low projections are shown and are projections based on student demand. The comment on the projections in the study is to the effect that facilities for legal education will probably not accommodate even the low projection. Source: Human Resources and Higher Education, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1970, p. 80. 2162 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 10 5. College Students' Surveys of Interest in Law Study. a. Gallup Poll Opinion Index, December, 1973. The following table compares the latest choices of the American public (18 and older) with those recorded in surveys taken on four earlier occasions during the last 23 years. PREFERRED OCCUPATIONS 1973 1967 1962 1953 1950 1. Doctor 28% 29% 23% 29% 29% 2. Lawyer 14 8 6 6 8 3. Engineer-Builder 13 14 18 20 16 4 Profeaaor-T eacher 10 12 12 5 5 5. Buaineaa Executive 10 7 5 7 8 6. Dentiat 7 4 4 6 4 7. Clergyman 7 8 8 7 8 8. Government career 5 7 7 3 6 9. Banker 2 1 2 2 4 Other, none, don't know 4 10 15 15 12 NOTE: An April, 1974 press release by George Gallup reported that college students this year are interested in the law to the extent of 10% of their numbers, a significant decline as against 1973. But the volume of applications to law school do not reflect such a turn down in interest. b. ACE, Research Report, The First Year of College: A Follow-up. Normative Report for 1966-67 Vol. 5, No. 1 (1970) at p. 20: Probable Career Occupation Males Females Lawyer 5 9% 0,4% ACE, Research Report, The American Freshman, National Norms for Fall, 1973 at pp. 23 and 33. Probable Career Occupation Males Females Lawyer 6.7% 2.5% c. ETS. "The Graduates" (1973), at p. 18, Education Plans of Senior Survey Sample, 1971: BY SEX Plan Men Women Total* N % N % N % Professional study in law 872 7.t 107 t.2 982 4.7 Total 12,315 8,333 20,732 * 84 students did not indicate sex. 1978] LA W SCHOOL STUDY 2163 O. rrojeciions Of numbers of 22-year-olds in population PROJECTIONS OF NUMBERS OF 22-YEAR-OLDS IN POPULATION 1970-2000 '975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 3,528,000 3,878,000 4,237,000 4,081,000 3,446,000 3,879,000 4,217,000 (From Table 2F p. 40, Population Estimates and Projections, U.S. ITepartment of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Series P-25, No. 470, November 1971). iTUKi/riu*. ruffuiuifuri'tawyer rauo, i!^6-Jy/U. NATIONAL: POPULATION-LAWYER RATIO, I948-I970* Year 1948 1951 1954 1957 1960 1963 1966 1970 Population 146,631,000 154,360,000 162,417,000 171,198,000 180,670,000 188,531,000 196,842,000 203,184,773 No. of Lawyer! 221,605 241,514 262,320 285,933 296,069 316,856 355,242 Ratio 696 672 653 632 637 621 572 96 Change per Interval Population Lawyer! 5.3 5.2 5.4 5.5 4.4 4.4 3.2 9.0 8.6 9.0 3.4 7.0 12.1 See Notes 3 and 4 below. "Sex, * and "Terminology" on pages Note t. See text discussion of "Population Groups, I and 2. Note 2. Terms Used: Lawyer. A person who has been admitted to practice in one of the states or the District of Columbia even though he may not be practicing. No. of Lawyers.—The sum of "Directory Listings" and "Lawyers Not Listed" (because no forms were returned to Martindale-Hubbell for them) minus one-half of the "Multiple Listings." Directory Listings. —The number of lawyers listed in the Law Directory. A lawyer is listed if he, or someone closely identified with him (i.e., a partner or associate) provides the basic listing information or completes and returns a questionnaire to Martindale-Hubt>etl, Inc. In addition, Martindale-Hubbell relies on various other sources to maintain current information. Lawyers Not Listed.—Those lawyers failing to respond to the questionnaire. Since 1950 Martindale-Hubbell has tried to maintain accurate records for this category, but for various reasons the figures are no doubt larger than the actual numt)er of individuals who have been admitted to the Bar but are unlisted. The figures may also include a number of persons who are deceased. Multiple Listings —Those lawyers listed more than once because they maintain more than one office. fVomen Lawyers—A lawyer was tabulated as male unless listed with "Miss" or "Mrs." or the given name indicated that the individual was a woman. Note 3. Source for population: 1970 Decennial Census of the United States. Note 4. See definition of "No. of Lawyers" in Note 2 above. Source: 1971 Lawyer Statistical Report, American Bar Foundation, p. 6. 2164 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW (Vol. 10 8. Slates: Population-lawyer ratio, 1970. STATES: POPULATION-LAWYER RATIO. 1970* State AIJVRAMA AlJ\SKA ARIZONA ARKANSAS CALIFORNIA COLORADO CONNECTICUT DElJ\WARE niST OFCOLUMBIA FLORIDA GEORGIA HAWAII IDAHO ILLINOIS INDIANA IOWA KANSAS KENTUCKY LOUISIANA MAINE MARYIJ^ND MASSACHUSETTS MICHIGAN MINNESOTA MISSISSIPPI MISSOURI MONTANA NEBRASKA NEVADA NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY NEW MEXICO NEW YORK NORTH CAROLINA NORTH DAKOTA OHIO OKLAHOMA OREGON PENNSYLVANIA RHODE ISIJ\ND SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH DAKOTA TENNESSEE TEXAS UTAH VERMONT VIRGINIA WASHINGTON WESTVIR(JINIA WISCONSIN WYOMING Popuiation 3,444,000 302,000 1,772.000 1.923.000 19,963,000 2,207,000 3,032,000 548,000 757,000 6,789,000 4,590,000 770.000 713.000 11,114,000 5,194,000 2,825,000 2,249,000 3,219,000 3,643,000 994,000 3,922,000 6,689,000 8,875,000 3,805,000 2,217,000 4,677,000 694,000 1,484,000 489,000 738,000 7,168.000 1,016.000 18,191,000 5,082,000 618,000 10,652,000 2,559,000 2,081,000 11,794,000 950,000 2,591.000 666,000 3,924,000 11,197,000 1,059.000 445,000 4,648,000 3,409,000 1,744,000 4,418,000 332,000 No. of Lawyers 3,537 466 2,769 2,107 34,248 4,665 5,583 736 16,112 11.510 6,140 906 848 22,036 5,778 4,020 3,458 3,875 5,502 1.130 7,447 12,905 11,753 5,844 2,766 7,962 1,072 2,679 773 823 11,999 1.319 55,946 4,638 809 17,001 5,056 3,207 14.418 1.390 2,379 826 5.184 19,074 1,367 611 6.893 4,671 1,820 6,697 475 Population per Lawyer 974 648 640 913 583 473 543 745 47 590 748 850 841 504 899 703 650 831 662 880 527 518 755 651 802 587 647 554 633 897 579 770 325 1,095 764 627 506 611 818 683 1,089 808 757 587 775 728 674 730 958 660 699 Rankin Country No. of Popu- Lawlation yers 21 28 51 33 32 1 30 24 47 41 9 15 40 43 5 11 25 28 23 20 38 18 10 7 19 29 13 44 35 48 42 8 37 2 12 46 6 27 31 3 39 26 45 17 4 36 49 14 22 34 16 50 51 31 35 2 24 19 48 6 11 16 42 43 3 18 26 29 27 20 40 13 8 10 17 32 12 41 33 47 45 9 39 25 46 5 22 30 7 37 34 44 21 4 38 49 14 23 36 15 50 of U.S. of U.S. Popu- Lawlatum yers 1.70 1.0 .15 .13 .87 .78 .95 .59 9.82 9.64 1.09 1.31 1.49 1.57 .27 21 .37 4.54 3.34 3.24 2.26 1.73 .38 .26 .35 .24 5.47 6.2 2.56 1.63 1.39 1.13 1.11 .97 1.58 109 1.79 1.55 .49 .32 1.93 2.10 3.29 3.63 4.37 3.31 1.87 1.64 1.09 .78 2.3 2.24 34 .3 .73 .75 24 .22 .36 .23 3.53 3.38 .50 .37 8.95 15.75 2.5 1.31 30 .23 5.24 4 79 126 142 1.02 .90 5.8 4.06 .47 .39 1.28 .67 33 .23 1.93 146 5.51 5.37 .52 .38 .22 .17 2 29 1.94 168 132 86 .51 2.17 1.88 .16 .13 Percentage Change 1963 1970 Popu Law lation -208 11 03 9.52 -1.64 5,52 11.63 5.46 7.03 6.31 1421 2.04 7.24 274 3.66 561 2.84 04 1.13 Ml 1 12 855 24.26 5.98 64 •4.73 3.75 1.14 3.85 7.71 837 3.91 5.87 .37 1.64 4.92 3.37 4 11 645 1.83 5.79 .19 -2.35 1.06 4 14 5.06 9.88 3.12 13.4 2.79 6.18 9.12 yers 16.;i 51..3 24.0 9. .34 20.53 16.56 15.63 19.96 11.46 20.53 12.37 36.65 10.27 8.49 10.98 5.51 11.04 9.0 14.03 10.78 15.2 13.66 14.98 12.64 1041 3.51 10 51 6.09 27 13 17.57 14.29 14 49 7.18 8.38 8.59 8.25 4 14 12.72 11.64 14.78 13.61 1087 8.65 16 78 8.4 19.1 18.86 14.37 3.05 737 2.8! * See Notes 3 and 4 on page 6. Source; 1971 Lawyer Statistical Report, American Bar Foundation, p. 26. '978] LAW SCHOOL STUDY 2165 9. Population per lawyer in private practice—smaller states. POPULATION PER LA WYER IN PRIVATE PRACTICE Smaller States Population Rank in per lawyer in availability private practice of legal services Utah 1,088 29 NewMexico 1,181 36 Maine 1,193 37 Rhode Uland 906 14 Hawaii 1,220 40 NewHampahire 1,217 39 Idaho 1,180 35 Montana 972 21 South Dakota 1,154 32 North Dakota 1,246 41 Delaware 1,295 43 Nevada 838 9 Vermont i,085 26 Wyoming i,027 25 Alaska 965 20 Computed from: 1971 Lawyer Statistical Report, American Bar Foundation. 2166 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 10 to. Ratio of lawyers to Gross National Product, 1950-80. RATIO OF LAWYERS TO GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT, 1950-80' Year GNPin Billions Lawyers per Billion Dollars of GNP Institutional Capacity Projection 1950 $ 372 1960 515 1963 581 1970 793 400 1975 981 382 1980 1,199 381 551 485 457 Law Student Demand Projection 403 402 411 (GNP Projections are in I%2 constant dollars, and assume 4 per cent annual growth rate, 1970 figures have been adjusted to be consistent with projections for 1970, Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin No. 15.16, Government Printing Office, Washington, l%7. Table 11-1.) Source: Pennsylvania Study (1971), p. II, 11. Increasing proportion of personal income in the United States going for legal services, 1950-71. INCREASING PROPORTION OF PERSONAL INCOME IN THE UNITED STATES GOING FOR LEGAL SERVICES, 1950-71 U.S. Personal Income (Billions) 1950 227.6 1955 310.9 1960 410.0 1965 538.9 1966 587.2 1967 629.4 1968 687.9 1969 750.3 1970 803.6 1971 857 Source: Pennsylvania Study (1971), p. II, Personallncomefor PerCentfor Legal Services (Billions) Legal Services 2.9 1.3 5.9 1.9 10.4 2.6 22.1 4.1 26.1 4.5 30.2 4.8 35.8 5.2 5.6 6.2 N,A. 1978] LA W SCHOOL STUDY 2167 12. Extract from Cantor and Rose, The Escalation in Salaries of Law School Graduates, 19 Practical Lawyer, 63, 64 (1973). Table! T KI O CompensationtoLswSchoolGrnduates „ Offered by Private Firme Unered by Corporationa CItvaland State 1972 1973 Loweet 1 8,000 8,600 Median 112,000 12,500 Hifheat 816,000 16,500 Cornell 1972 1973 Loweet 812,000 13,000 Highaet 816,000 16,000 Cornell 1972 1973 9,000 9.000 16,000 16,000 19,000 20,000 Georgetown 1972 1973 13,000 13,000 15,000 16,500 Qeorgetown U. 1972 1973 12,500 14,000 14,000 16,600 16,000 17,000 U.ofTeiaa 1972 1973 • * 13,200 16,000 Rutf ere. Newftrli 1972 1973 7.500 11,000 10,000 11,000 14,000 16,000 U. ofPittaburgh 1972 1973 10,600 10,500 12,500 12,500 U. ofCalifomia 1972 1973 12,000 12,000 13,500 14,600 14,600 16,000 U. ofCalifomia 1972 1973 12,000 • 14,400 14,500 Temple U. of Denver 1972 1973 1972 1973 10,000 10,600 7,800 7,800 12,000 13,000 10,000 10,000 14,600 16,000 13,000 16,000 * Not Available U. ofMinneeota 1972 1973 7,600 8,400 12,000 13,440 • 16,200 U.ofPitteburfh 1972 1973 9,000 9,000 12,500 12,600 15,000 16,000 U. ofTeue 1972 1973 7,200 8.100 9,600 10,200 16,000 18,000 U.ofPenneylvania 1072 1973 8,000 12,000 • • 16,000 18,000 Factors Affecting Compensation. While academic standing has a substantial effect on the salary a graduating student could expect, a number of placement officers indicated that other factors were also influential. They mentioned: .be ^ background is not really the deciding factor in determining the firmH Th ^ Rather, it is the city in which the firm is located, the size of the firm, and the f.rin s self image, especially if it sees itself as competitive with the big prestige firms in that particular City. ee is influenced greatly by the area of employment, coupled with the graduate s experience over and above his legal education. For example our top salaries were offered by Washington, D.C. firms seeking high ranking, mature students with prior experience in the military or in government." 2168 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW [Vol.10 1.1. Extract from Report on National Law Placement Conference of June, 1974 by Ms. Virginia Stewart, ASU Law Placement Office. June 18, 1974 MEMORANDUM TO: Dean Willard H. Pedrick FROM: Virginia Stewart, ASU Law Placement Office RE: Nationwide Job Analysis Report by Regional Areas (Reflecting 3rd N.A.L.P. Annual Meeting, June, 1974) Western States—California, Oregon, Washington, Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico 1. California. Salary range $10,500-$ 19,000. Job market was the same as last year except for fewer opportunities in San Diego (the worst City for job-seekers in the State) and for slightly more opportunities in San Francisco. San Diego is saturated and salaries are low. More students are going to rural areas and outlying towns, but not from choice. California reported a noticeable increase in law graduates going into CPA and accounting firms, also into law-related jobs with banks and corporations in San Francisco. Los Angeles showed no appreciable change and many of the L.A. schools did not respond to the questionnaire at all. 2. Northwest and Washington State. No salary range given. Jobs are very scarce in this area. Students do not want to relocate and do not want to go to small towns where there are jobs. 3. Colorado, Utah and Idaho. No salary range given. Job market has not changed and is still very tight, but students in this area are willing or forced to relocate. There is a definite trend toward private practice, smaller firms and business jobs. While students are relocating, it is only within this discrete section and they are not going any further afield than is necessary. 4. Arizona. Salary range $10,000-$ 15,500. Arizona looked better than any of the other states in this area. Both ASU College of Law and the University of Arizona showed a willingness by 1978] LAW SCHOOL STUDY 2169 f A- I -7 " wiin signiticant numbers Ending jobs with small firms in outlying districts. Also, Arizona had a h^igher percentage of sole practitioners than any other part of the country. This IS not an empirical statement, however; we (ASU and U of A) based our conclusion on comparative figures as other sections made reports Our salary range was competitive with all other areas of the country ($10,000/$ 15,500) except for a very few high-powered graduates of the Ivy ^ague and they were exceptions. Also, since these high salaries entailed living in New York and similar areas we considered the larger pay to constitute combat pay. Arizona had the best track record of all for placement of summer clerks the summer following completion of their second year. Some sections of the country wait until early Spring to start hunting clerkships for their students. This seems unconscionably late in the year to me. General Conclusions. a) No student who comes West to school in any of these states would be willing to go back to the Midwest, Northeast or other points of origin. b) No new areas of employment opportunities were mentioned in any of the reports. c) There is a definite trend back to the numerical grade system Employers are demanding it and if a school will not supply enough scholastic information the firms can hire somewhere else. Several instances of this were reported; it seems, finally, to have dawned on schools that we have a buyers' market. 2170 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 10 14. Table 26~Earned First Professional Degrees, by Field of Study United States, 1960-61 to 1981-82. Table 26—Earned first-professional degrees, by field of study: United States, 1960-61 to 1981-82 Year (1) 1960.61 1961-62 1962-63 1963 64 1964-65 1965-66 1966 67 1967-68 1968-69 1969 70 1970-71 1971-72« 1972 73 1973 74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 Total (2) 26,391 26,457 27,097 27,667 28,755 30,799 32,472 34,787 36,018 35,724 37,946 45,200 54,800 62,600 64,700 66,600 69,400 70,800 73,200 75,100 77,400 79,500 Medicine' (3) 6,940 7,138 7,231 7.303 7.304 7,673 7,723 7,944 8,026 8,314 8,919 9,610 Other Dentietry" health profeuiona' (4) 3,265 3,183 3,169 3,180 3,108 3,247 3,341 3,422 3,408 3,718 3,745 3,960 10,920 11,830 13,080 13,340 13,680 14,240 14,830 15,300 15,770 16,250 PROJECTED' 4,230 4,500 5,090 5,170 5,370 5,600 6,000 6,150 6,300 6,450 (5) 1,764 1,599 1,691 1,624 1,794 1,834 2,003 2,153 2,290 2,372 2,495 2,720 2,750 3,020 3,180 3,440 3,580 3,820 3,950 4,070 4,200 4,300 Law* (6) 9,429 9,548 10,105 10,868 11,782 13,481 15,114 16,916 17,436 15,445 17,421 22,510 29,120 34,470 34,280 35,290 37,030 37,220 38,180 39,080 40,310 41,410 Other" (7) 4,993 4,989 4,901 4,692 4,767 4,564 4,291 4,352 4,859 5,875 5,366 6,410 7,780 8,780 9,070 9,360 9,740 9,920 10,240 10,500 10,820 11,090 1, M,D, degrees only, 2, D.D.S, or D,M,D, degrees, medicine"'^'"'''^ degrees in chiropody or podiatry, optometry, osteopathy, and veterinary 4. LL.B. or J.D. degrees. 5. Includes iheology and other degrees. 6. Estimated. , n J degrees by field were projected by means of the following methods: Medicine, dentistry, and other health professions were projected by the Division of Manpower Intelligence, National Institutes of Health, These projections are based on output resulting from support in the Comprehensive Manpower Training Act of 1971, (2) The projections of -other" first-professional degrees are based primarily on the assumption that for men c!!liTrT.h^''X''!r^. degrees are of total degrees will remain constant at the 1970-71 rate to 1981-82. (3) Projected law degrees are the differences in each year between the projected number of all first-professional degrees and the sum of projected category degrees in medicine, dentistry, other health professions, and the "other" Source: Degree data are based on U S, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Office of Education publications: Earned Degrees Conferred by Institutions of Higher Education, 1%0-6I through 1970-71. Source: Projeclion., of Educational Statistics to 1981-82. 1972 Edition, National Center for Educational Statistics. 1978] LA W SCHOOL STUDY 2171 2 Pop«la.io„ April, 1,74. 1> By'o,i„',y"'|5o"200a'' '""-2020'. c- Clark County 1970-2000 • Nevada Population, 1920-2020, b. Bachelor's ^'rada—UNLV uid UNR. A. Nevada Bar Informalion. ""'®rSilyof Nevada Syslem. B Ca'«BBalea. 7, Nevada Ho, • - """luaies, fcrs., June, 1974, 8. Nevada Bar Sum^'^" Part 111, ' uTfZfT" 'T Report 1974. Ua^a c„™,„ee Nevada LeRislarive Co^l.sio. Nevada Uiv »ion Tnis committee was estahi:cb..r4 - ' ' a» X X X a*. ^ ri n — o m' 8s§§§§i§ "O o to X O". 'sssis i^-gggSgS.g > lO lO O © X X • ' I- X Ol I- X X I - fO — C Oi ; 8 8 g 3 _ CO X© XeoXXiM C--XX — ©rtin— lOOJOXXCI-iOX g to ao,o "cniXXX >-i^iori05—t-io — •r^eOftriOOtc^ & to '*•. S o ^ X 2 Oi IN lO »0 to C to ^ X X ff> — lO X X — 2R ^ lO x' CO X >o' O x' I-' o' N c«i C N isSii tx© XX©Xt-X— 5 ;ON «S,rtXXx©ryt, rr~CO — lOI^"— • rxx to (NXnrXXX X CO— XN > © ^ — X © > • to f- O X X X > X X — — X X ^ ^ -roi X— XXCOlO— I'^X' J 'T ^ r- ^ ^ 04 o S §5 ^ ® ® ^ ^ ^ O ^ X — N •' — O x' tj- ' cm" eo' CS| © o nf to" X V N x' CM* — — oi «r — - — — XX CO— oj — _ CO NV ©XX — O NXOO©XXCO X— N^X — — I~r is 'S&s ©-x — xr-»©x — .vx — COt-QXI g O lO^ ® 'rJ^©X©Ot~X x^xr~xt-xx< — z; Z1 K c>4 — CO ©' X* X* X* x' — CS| N — — —' x' © X N — _ t; ©X XXt-C5X XXXX^©XX XXX-TOiCf-©? S O !2co 2f*i^xC9 o,^xr~0'»^-«r x.^OQCxxxx- §{ T ®. ©gjxnfx ©J^OOXXr-X rn®a5nrX©N'r' Lr ^ op csi — x" X* V x' V x' — g N — — x' c^i — c 2 ? S 2 £ 2 "S 2 ^ ^ CD Zap© ©"oCa, 2*0 2"^ ©"ox ,S 3 "©SOc rjcSg3 "c ^,32 Oc~£J2'^— >2 sfss sS-gfi? -§S©g^sl2 2J®a; «fc«{5o oSlfcSot^.Ssi CD ^ 2 a. u. CL S u Q 2a.ujZcjX2 cd a. a. J w S j cd w 1978) e. LAW SCHOOL STUDY County Growth Patterns 1920-2020. 2181 County Growth Patterns 1920-2020 Figure 2-1 Source. Water for Nevada. Water Planning ReporI#.S Prepared by the Slate Engineer's Office, Carson Cily, Nevada. February 1973. 2182 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW [Vol. lo f. Nevada Population, 1920-2020. Nevada Population, 1920-2020 Figure 1-1 q: z g »- 3 S < o < > 2.000,000 1.000.000 700.000 500.000 400.000 300.000 200.000 150.000 100.000 70.000 .LPAST P T— lOJECTED HIGH LOW CENSU YEAR 1 1 H: High population growth line (See Table l-l). M: Most probable population growth line. The M-line was determined by probability model solution, whereas the H-line and the L-line were determined by conditions external to the model. Calculations involving economic activity and water and related land resource use are based on the M-line, unless otherwise noted. (See Table 1-2). L: Low population growth line. (See Table l-l). Source: Water for Nevada, Water Planning Rcport#5. Prepared by the State Engineer's Office. Carson City, Nevada, February. 1973. 1978] LA W SCHOOL STUDY 2183 Average Age Nevada Populaiion: 27.8 Number in 21-24 age group: 35,000 (probably-f) Numbers of 22-year-olds in Nevada population 22-Year Olds 8.000 (or 1.62%) 8.877 (assuming 1.62%) 12,474 (assuming 1.62% remains constant) Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 3. University of Nevada data. a. Enrollment statistics, University of Nevada—UNLV and UNR. Enrollment statistics for the Fall Semester, 1973: Year Population 1970 491,000 1973 548,000 (projected) 1980 770,000 In-State Students Oui-of-State Students Out-of-State Percentage b. Bachelor's Degrees conferred System. UNLV UNR 4,651 5,414 467 1,282 10% 24% by the University of Nevada UN-Reno 873 UN-Las Vegas 467 1340 UN-Reno 890 UN-Las Vegas 483 1373 UN-Reno 858 UN-L.as Vegas 533 1391 4. Nevada Bar Information. a. Nevada Bar Admissions—Successful Candidates. Bar Admission—Successful Candidates 1969 59 1970 51 1971 74 1972 69 1973 88 Total current membership—Nevada Bar—865. 2184 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW [Vol.10 NOTE: Mr. Robert Herz, Secretary of the Nevada Bar Association advised the UNLV that the percentage of applicants (as distinguished from successful applicants) in relation to status as residents and non-residents for 1970 and 1972, was as follows: Year Residents Non-residents 1970 36 48 1972 38 48 b. Law schools contributing members of Nevada Bar, 1969-73; law school—graduates admitted to Nevada Bar, 1969-73. U. of Utah 25 U. of Oregon 4 Hastings 19 U. of Nebraska 4 U. of Arizona 17 Arizona State U. 3 McGeorge 17 Howard Law School 3 U. of San Diego 16 California Western U. 3 U. of Denver 16 Washington U. 3 U. ofSan Francisco 13 U. of Montana 3 George Washington 13 VanderbiltU. 3 U.ofCal.,BoaltHall 12 Creighton U. 2 U. of Santa Clara 10 Columbia U. 2 U. ofColorado 7 U. of Illinois 2 Georgetown U. LawCtr. 7 Rutgers 2 Willamette U. 6 Boston College 2 U. of Cal., Davis 6 U. of Notre Dame 2 Stanford 5 St. Louis U. of Law 2 U.C.L.A. 5 St. John's U. of Law 2 Golden Gate College 5 U. of Detroit 2 New York U. 5 U. of Wisconsin 2 U. of Southern Cal. 5 U. of Miami 2 Ix>yola 4 U. of South Carolina 2 U. ofIdaho 4 Brooklyn Law School 2 Amer. U.,Collegeof Law 4 DuquesneU. 1 U.ofTexas 4 Duke 1 U. of Washington 4 Harvard 1 1978] LAW SCHOOL STUDY 2185 Washington and Lee Ohio State Cambridge U. John Marshall U. of New Mexico Cumberland Drake Washburn U. ofTopeka Indiana State U. of New York SyracuseU. Cal. Western School of Law Catholic U. of Amer. U. of Chicago Case Western Reserve U. Ken t College of Law Louisiana State U. U. of North Dakota U. of Michigan Lewis and Clarke Cornell Suffolk U. U. of Missouri Baylor U. U. of Virginia U. of North Carolina U. ofTennessee Northwestern U. U. of Kansas Southern Methodist U. Gonzaga 2186 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW [Vol.10 5. Study of Nevadans taking LSAT and applying to Law School, Educational Testing Service Special Study, June, 1974. Nevada Residents Applying to Law Schools in the States Indicated September I, 1972-August 31, 1973 Law Schools Grouped by State Applicants Admitted Registered Alabama 4 Arizona 68 3 _ Arkansas 2 .. California 407 48 19 Colorado 45 1 1 Connecticut 1 _ Delaware 1 District of Columbia 49 4 2 Florida 7 Georgia 3 .. .. Hawaii 4 _ _ Idaho 14 2 1 Illinois 20 1 1 Indiana 10 2 Iowa 1 „ Kansas 6 _ Kentucky 9 „ Louisiana 9 .. Maine 1 .. Massachusetts 22 4 Michigan 1 Minnesota 1 _ Mississippi 2 Missouri 4 Nebraska 4 „ New Hampshire 1 1 1 New Jersey 5 1 .. New Mexico 16 „ New York 25 6 2 North Carolina 12 .. 1978] LAW SCHOOL STUDY 2187 Law Schools Grouped by State Applicants Admitted Registered North Dakota 4 1 Ohio 11 2 Okiahoma 11 2 Oregon 67 3 2 Pennsylvania 5 1 .. Puerto Rico 1 .. South Dakota 1 Tennessee 9 „ Texas 23 3 2 Utah 50 5 1 Virginia 8 .. Washington 13 1 „ West Virginia I _ Wisconsin 3 _ .. Wyoming 7 ~ Total 968 91 32 The table is based on reports sent to law schools showing distributions of their applicants by state of residence and the actions taken on them by the school. Applicants are defined as students in the LSDAS file plus a few students who, for one reason or another, do not go through LSDAS but which law schools add to their files for purposes of year-end reporting. With regard to the action column labelled "Registered," this depends on information from law schools and its accuracy is affected by the completeness with which the reporting was done. Some law schools reported no information while others reported partial information so that, at best, these figures represent minima. With regard to the total number of applicants shown at the end of the table (968), it should be remembered that this represents the number of LSDAS reports sent, not the number of individuals involved. Any individual may have had reports sent to more than one school and, if so, would have been counted more than once. The second report gives mean scores on the LSAT and Writing Ability tests for candidates indicating Nevada as state of permanent residence for the periods shown. The number of young Nevadans who took the LSAT and registered with LSDAS in 1972-73, is not given in the above table. With the aid of some extrinsic evidence, some satisfactory approximations can be made. In the two-year period, 1970-72, as the attached data shows, 356 candidates took the LSAT from Nevada. In the second year of that two-year period, 1971-72, the present authors are advised from another source that 206 students from Nevada took the LSAT, indicating a 2188 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW (Vol. 10 continuing upward trend. We estimate that about 235 from Nevada took the LSAT in 1972-73. We do know that for every registrant with the LSDAS in 1972-73, an average of 4.9 law .schools were designated to receive reports. On that basis, we estimate that about 2(X) separate individuals registered with LSDAS and generated the 968 requests for reports to law schools. In light of the number of Nevadans believed to have both taken the LSAT in 1972-73 (235), and the number who are estimated to have registered with LSDAS (200), we are not disposed to weight heavily the Study reported that the number of persons actually enrolled as first-year law students in the Fall of 1973 was 32. TTiere must have been substantial under-reporting. A partial Survey for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, conducted in 1973 and presumably reflecting Fall, 1972 enrollments indicated that there were in the 20 reporting schools of the 11 Western States, a total of 119 Nevadans in all three years attending law school. Though only 19 were shown on that report as first-year students, 75 students not specified as to class. Thirty of that number were probably first-year students and, thus, there is evidence that in 1972-73, there were about 40 to 45 fir.st-year law students from Nevada attending the reporting schools of the 11 Western States, with an unknown number in other law schools of the United States. From all of these less than satisfactory indicators and with some estimation on the part of the authors, we are satisfied that, in the Fall of 1973, there were not many more than 50 first-year law students from Nevada. On the basis of the Nevada population, that is little more than half the number one would expect. 6. LSAT Means for Nevada candidates, ETS., June, 1974. LSAT Means for Nevada Candidates The following table shows mean LSAT and Writing Ability scores obtained by students indicating permanent residence in the state of Nevada and who took the test during the periods shown. Corresponding mean scores based on the national populations for the .same periods are also given. State of Nevada Number of Date Candidates LSAT WA 1970-72 356 521 49 1968-70 231 511 49 1966-68 175 521 50 1978] LAW SCHOOL STUDY 2189 National Numberof Candidates ISAT WA 183,286 523 .50 117,534 518 57 83,653 518 50 Extract from Letter to Dr. Ralph J. Roske, University of Nevada Las Vegas from Mrs. Virginia W. Patterson, Director, Student Exchange Program, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education: "I consulted Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, for some information on numbers of students interested in law in Nevada. In 1971-72 206 stud^ts tTOk the LSAT examination. Of that number, 95 scored in the range of 550 or better. Most successful applicants had scores of 600 or better but a few individuals with high CPA's and scores of 550 or better, did gain admission." ® 7. Nevada Bar—provision of service for low-income persons. January 4, 1974 Lome Hugh Seidman, Esq. 4155 Grace Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89121 Dear Mr. Seidman: The Board of Governors has advised this court that a critical situation exists tn Clark County with regard to representation of low-income persons in civil matters. In 1970, Clark County Legal Services Program handled 715 cases with five staff attorneys. In 1973, because of cutbacks in federal askance, three attorneys handled 1,320cases. In addition, approximately ,000 cases which qualified for assistance were rejected because of lack of staff, thereby depriving many citizens of the State of essential legal service. Re.sponse by members of the Bar to an earlier request for assistance by me president of the State Bar was disappointing. For example, in Clark County in 1972, 39 lawyers out of approximately 400 volunteered their services to the Legal Services Program. Practicing lawyers cannot remain indifferent to the professional obligations imposed upon them by their oath. Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility of the American Bar Association adopted by this court on March 24, 1971, says: SOUTHWESTERS-NEVADA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 10 "A Lawyer Should Assist the Legal Profession in Fulfilling Its Duty to Make Legal Counsel Available." EC 2-25 of the Canon urges lawyers to provide legal services for those unable to pay. Since the siluation is critical, we direct that you forthwith advise this court, in writing, of your availability to assist in the resolution of this problem which is common to all lawyers in Nevada. Your response should indicate your willingness to accept assignments from Legal Aid or Legal Services when a request is solicited for qualified indigents. Your participating, together with that of your fellow members of the Bar, should not result in an unreasonable burden on you, and your responsibility to provide legal services to those unable to pay will be met without taking an inordinate amount of your time. Sincerely, GORDON THOMPSON, Chief Justice 8. Nevada Bar Survey. QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS In June, 1974, a questionnaire was sent to all members of the Nevada State Bar. This questionnaire was designed to elicit both specific information and general comments. Responses to questions which solicited general comments have helped us organize this report by raising or emphasizing questions that we have attempted to answer. Responses to questions soliciting specific information have provided us with valuable information on the distribution of lawyers in Nevada and the nature of practice in Nevada. Some of our findings are discussed in Chapter 1 of this report and, for the benefit of the interested reader, additional findings are presented in this section of the Appendix. Number % 4 1 2 .6 2 .6 13 4 2. Average Age of Respondents. 40 years. 3. Retirement Plans in Existence. 146 (45 per cent) of the respondents indicated their participation in a retirement plan and the average planned age for retirement was 63.6. 1. Geographic Distribution of Respondents. Number % I^asVegas 147 45 Reno 113 35 Carson City 30 9 Sparks 7 2 Elko 6 2 Incline Village Tonopah Yerrington Other 1978] LAW SCHOOL STUDY 2191 4. State in Which Nevada Lawyers Were Domiciled When They Applied to the Law School They Attended. The respondents to our questionnaire were domiciled in 30 different states when they applied to the law schools they attended. 198 claimed Nevada as their domicile at that time. Other states, and the frequency with which they were mentioned, are as follows: Utah 10 NewJersey 6 Illinois 10 Oregon 5 New York 9 Other 47 The 47 respondents in the category listed as "other" resided in 23 different states. 5. Years in Which Respondents were Licensed to Practice Law in Nevada. Number 1900-1929 6 19,30-1935 2 19.36-1940 6 1941-1945 2 1946-19.50 13 1951-19.55 34 19.56-1960 21 1961-1965 54 1966-1970 85 1971-1973 82 6. Members of Nevada Bar Also Licensed in Other States. 145, or almost 45 per cent, of the respondents indicated they were licensed to practice in a state other than Nevada. The other states and the frequency with which they were mentioned are as follows: Number % Number % California 58 18 Illinois 7 2 Utah 10 3 Arizona 6 2 Colorado 8 2 Texas 4 1 New York 7 2 Other 45 14 7. State of Domicile Prior to Attaining Nevada Domicile. 78, (24 per cent) of the respondents indicated that Nevada has always been their home or that they have resided in Nevada since early childhood. The other states and the frequency with which they were mentioned are as follows: Number % Number % California 71 22 New York 8 2 Utah 15 5 Arizona 5 1 Illinois 9 3 Virginia 5 1 Colorado 9 3 Other 60 19 The 60 respondents in the category listed as "other" resided in 25 different slates prior to attaining their Nevada domicile. SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 10 8. Knowledge of Experience of Law School Applicants from Nevada. 53, or almost 19 per cent, of the respondents with knowledge of the experiences of law school applicants from Nevada indicated they knew of young Nevadans, potentially qualified to practice law, who had difficulty securing admission to an accredited law school. 234, or more than 81 per cent, had no such knowledge. 9. Size and Growth Patterns of Law Firms and Legal Departments in Nevada. The questionnaire sent to bar members attempted to determine the size and expected growth rate of law firms and legal departments in Nevada. The questionnaire directed respondents to coordinate their answers with other members of their firm or organization so that only one response would be received from each organization. A review of the returned questionnaires indicates that the responses do not appear to provide reliable information. Many of the spaces were filled by dashes, question marks and comments. The responses, however, provided the following averages: Lawyers in firm or office 3 Lawyers recruited in last five years Lawyers recruited in last year 1 *9 Lawyers likely to recruit in next three years It may be noted that if the above averages accurately reflect the departments in Nevada, the average organization will contain six members m 1977. This would be an increase of 40 per cent. 10. Recruitment of Lawyers by Nevada Firms and Legal Departments. Respondents indicated that their firm or organization had recruited lawyers from 34 different law schools. The ten schools most often mentioned and the number of times mentioned were as follows: University of Utah 7 4 U.C., Berkeley ^ McGeorge School of Law 4 6 Harvard University ^ Stanford 5 Arizona State University 3 IIP LA 5 University of San Francisco 2 1978] LAW SCHOOL STUDY 2193 PART IV. EXTRACTS FROM NEVADA'S ECONOMIC PROSPECTS. From a specifically-commissioned study by Dr. Bernard Malamud, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Projections of Nevada Economic Activity. Historical trends are used to project the economic activities listed in Table 1. Each of these activities have exhibited impressive growth thrtrugh the I960's and into the I970's. Projection of their average annual growth rates far into the future, however, can lead to ludicrous conclusions. Clark County gross gaming revenues, for example, have been growing consistently as a fraction of U.S. disposable income. Each year, this fraction increases by about 6% of its previous year's value. And there is no indication that 6% annual growth relative to disposable income is tapering off. Projecting a constant 6% annual growth rate, 7.2% of U.S. disposable income will wind up as Clark County gaming revenues by year 2000. This is approximately the percentage of income presently spent for medical services throughout the United States. Continuing with a constant 6% annual growth projection, all U.S. disposable income will wind up in Clark County casino coffers by year 2090. In order to avoid such ludicrous conclusions, we seek indications of declining growth rates in the economic activities we examine. Maintenance of a constant percentage growth rate requires ever increasing annual increments to a data series, e.g., number of Las Vegas resort and commercial hotel rooms. Ever more and ever larger hotels need to be opened year after year just to match the 8% average annual growth experienced from 1953 to 1972. Even if tourist demand warrants such continued rapid growth, land (and water) availability for resort hotels, for resort worker housing, for housing support industry workers drawn to Las Vegas by resort industry growth, and for commercial establishments to serve the increased population must limit growth within decades. Percentage growth rates of Las Vegas hotel rooms have, in fact, been declining: The 2000 room MOM Grand Hotel, the largest ever, accounted for a smaller percentage increase in 1973 Las Vegas resort hotel rooms than the 1500 room International Hotel accounted for relative to 1969 Las Vegas hotel rooms. Other Nevada and Las Vegas economic data series have similarly evidenced declining rates of growth. 2194 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW [Vol.10 The mathematical model adopted for measuring growth rate decline in an economic activity assumes a constant annual rate of decline. That is, growth rate is assumed to start at a high value and to fall by a constant amount in each succeeding year. In the case of Las Vegas hotel rooms, an 11.7% annual growth rate is estimated for 1953; this growth rate is estimated to fall by 35/100 of one percentage point each year following 1953. The declining growth rate model "fits" most of the economic data series well. Like the constant growth rate model, however, it too can lead to questionable projections. The estimated 35/100 of one % annual drop in the Las Vegas hotel room growth rate, small though it is, predicts negative growth by 1987 and continued decline in the number of hotel rooms thereafter. Such absolute decline is possible: old rooms may be demolished and replaced by more spacious but fewer rooms; hotels may be converted to other uses. A leveling-off or growth in step with national and world economies seems more likely than decline for Las Vegas hotel rooms and the other activities studied. Unrealistically high long-run projections flow from constant growth rate models. Unrealistically low projections flow from constantly declining growth rate models. These problems are resolved by (1) estimating both models for each of the activities studied; (2) optimally combining projections yielded by the two models; and (3) limiting projections to a 15 year horizon. The models used relate growth in Las Vegas resort employment, McCarran Airport traffic and, Reno resort employment to time. In doing so, they capture the influences of important trends that have operated over time; population and income growth, particularly in nearby California; incrases in air and road transportation facilities; increases in leisure-time activity; and increases in competitive travel and resort offerings outside of Nevada, national and worldwide. Model calibrations and projections are summarized in Tables 2a-k. In each case the natural logarithm of the data series is estimated as a function of time and time-squared; Model A is the constant growth model. Model B, the declining growth rate model, and Model C is the best combination of the two. The Mathematical forms of the three models are: MODEL A Yt = EXP(K)EXP(bt) where Yt = projection of activity in year t. K = constant term measured for the model. 1978] LA W SCHOOL STUDY 2195 ' year for which projection is made; t=l for first year of data series; t=2 for second year, etc. ^us, the constant growth rate model projects an activity as a constant, EXP (K), multiplied by a term that increases exponentially with time, EXP(bt). MODEL B Yt=EXP(K)EXP(bt-ct2) where c = time squared coefficient measured for the model. All other symbols are as defined before. terin, EXP(K), multiplied by an exponential term that rises parabolically with time to a peak and then falls off, EXP(bt-ct^). Model C has the same mathematical form as Model B. Its constant time, and tune-squared coefficients equal the corresponding coefficients of Models A aiid B weighted by these models' respective information contents I.e., inversely to their estimation variances. 2196 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 10 Extracts froin Nevada's Economic Prospects. Table I Summary of Nevada Economic Activity Projections Projected Percentage Increases 1974-79 1974-84 1. Las Vegas Resort Employment 39% 89% 2. McCarran Airport Traffic 55 114 3. Auto Traffic on 1-15 (LA-LV) 11 13 4. Total Auto Traffic into L.V. 15 26 5. Las Vegas Resort Rooms 30 61 6. L.V. Convention Attendance 45 67 7. L.V. Real Gross Gaming Rev. a 67 183 8. L.V. Real Bank Deposits a 36 71 9. Nevada Real Transaction Tax Coll. a,b 20 33 10. Reno Resort Employment 36 85 11. Auto Traffic on 1-80 (CA-Reno) 4 -11 (a) Gaining revenues, bank deposits, and tax collections expressed in l%7 dollars. (b) Transaction tax revenues, net of local school support tax; includes sales tax, gasoline, cigarette, and liquor taxes 1978] LAW SCHOOL STUDY 2197 Table 2a Projections of Las Vegas Resort Employment (000) MODELA MODELS MODELC CONSTANT COEF = 2 .351000 2.298000 2.319329 TIME COEF = .078835 .095385 .088725 TIME SQUARED COEF = -.000919 -.000549 INFOCONTENT 2143 3182 5325 WEIGHT IN MODELC .402 .598 YEAR TRUE VALUE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE % GROWTH, C 1956 10.5 10.0 10.2 1957 10.9 11.4 10.9 11.1 9.2 19,58 11.9 12.3 12.0 12.1 9.1 1959 13.4 13.3 13.1 13.2 9.0 1960 14.8 14.4 14.4 14.4 8.9 1961 1,5.2 15.6 15.7 15.6 8.7 1962 17.2 16.8 17.1 17.0 8.6 1963 18.9 18.2 18.6 18.4 8.5 1964 19.7 19.7 20.1 20.0 8.4 1965 20.9 21.3 21.8 21.6 8.3 1966 23.4 23.1 23.6 23.4 8.1 1967 25.6 25.0 25.4 25.3 8.0 1968 27.1 27.0 27.4 27.2 7.9 1969 31.3 29.2 29.5 29.4 7.8 1970 32.8 31.6 31.6 31.6 7.7 1971 33.0 34.2 33.9 34.0 7.6 1972 35.5 37.1 36.2 36.5 7.4 1973 38.5 40.1 38.6 39.2 7.3 1974 43.4 41.1 42.0 7.2 1975 46.9 43.8 45.0 7.1 1976 50.8 46.4 48.1 7.0 1977 55.0 49.2 51.4 6.8 1978 59.5 52.0 54.9 6.7 1979 64.3 54.9 58.5 6.6 1980 69.6 57.9 62.3 6.5 1981 75.3 60.8 66.3 6.4 1982 81.5 63.9 70.5 6.3 1983 88.2 66.9 74.8 6.1 1984 95.4 70.0 79.3 6.0 1985 103.3 73.1 84.0 5.9 1986 111.7 76.1 88.8 5.8 1987 120.9 79.2 93.9 5.7 1988 130.8 82.2 99.1 5.6 1989 141.5 85.2 104.5 5.4 2198 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 10 Table 2b Projections of McCarran Air Travelers, Enplaning and Deplaning (000) MODELA CONSTANT COEF = 5.571415 TIMECOEF= .153030 TIME SQUARED COEF = INFO CONTENT 852 WEIGHT IN MODEL C .287 YEAR TRUE VALUE ESTIMATE 19,52 262.8 19.53 214.0 306.3 1954 311.0 356.9 19.55 441.0 415 9 1956 4.36.0 484.7 19.57 585.0 564.9 19,58 686.0 658.3 1959 960.0 767.1 1960 1079 0 894.0 1961 1132.0 1041.8 1962 1285.0 1214.0 1963 1445.0 1414.8 1964 1700.0 1648.8 1965 1908.0 1921.4 1966 2364.0 2239.1 1967 2848.0 2609.4 1968 3522.0 3040.9 1969 4031.0 3543.7 1970 4087.0 4129.7 1971 4102.0 4812.6 1972 4607.0 5608.4 1973 53970.0 6535.8 1974 7616.5 1975 8876.0 1976 10343.7 1977 12054.2 1978 14047.4 1979 16370.3 1980 19077.3 1981 22231.9 1982 25908.2 1983 30192.4 1984 35185.0 1985 41003.2 1986 47783.5 1987 55684.9 1988 64893.0 1989 75623.7 MODELS MODELC 5.286415 5.368183 .227250 .205956 •003374 -.002406 2118 2970 .713 ESTIMATE ESTIMATE %GROWTH, 197.6 214.5 247.2 262.9 22.6 307.2 320.7 22.0 379.1 389.3 21.4 464.7 470.4 20.8 565 8 565.6 20.2 684.3 676.8 19.7 822.1 805.9 19.1 980.9 9.55.1 18.5 1162.5 1126.5 17.9 1368.6 1322.3 17.4 1600.2 1544.7 16.8 1858.6 1795.8 16.3 2144.1 2077.7 15.7 2456.8 2392.3 15.1 2796.2 2741.3 14.6 3161.1 3126.1 14.0 .3549.6 ,3547.9 13.5 3959.0 4007.2 12.9 4385.9 4504.3 12.4 4826.2 5038.7 11.9 5275.0 5609.5 11.3 5726.7 6215.0 10.8 6175.3 6852.7 10.3 6614.3 7519.7 9.7 7036.8 8211.9 9.2 7436.0 8924.8 8.7 7805.0 9653.1 8.2 8137.2 10390.6 7.6 8426.5 11130.8 7.1 8667.3 11866.5 6.6 8855.1 12590.1 6.1 8986.1 13293.7 5.6 9057.8 13969.3 5.1 9068.6 14608.7 4.6 9018.3 15204.0 4.1 8908.1 15747.6 3.6 8739.9 162,32.4 3.1 1978] LAW SCHOOL STUDY 2199 Table 2c Projections of Average Daily Auto Counts on 1-15 (LA-LV), Both Directions MODELA MODELS MODELC CONSTANT COEF = 8.289000 8.165000 8.207910 TIME COEF = .063066 .107130 .091882 TIME SQUARED COEF = -.002754 -.001801 INFO CONTENT 250 472 722 WEIGHT IN MODELC .346 .654 YEAR TRUE VALUE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE % GROWTH, C 1957 3979.9 3515.7 3669.9 % GROWTH, C 1958 3776.0 4238.9 3902.5 4015.8 9.4 1959 4284.0 4514.9 4308.1 4378.5 9.0 1960 4973.0 4808.8 4729.6 4756.9 8.6 1961 4802.0 5121.8 5163.9 5149.3 8.3 1962 6002.0 5455.2 5607.2 5554.1 7.9 1963 6311.0 5810.3 6055.0 5969.2 7.5 1964 6408.0 6188.6 6502.6 6392.2 7.1 1965 6752.0 6591.4 6945.0 6820.6 6.7 1966 7640.0 7020.5 7376.8 7251.5 6.3 1967 7888.0 7477.5 7792.4 7682.0 5.9 1968 8139.0 7964.3 8186.1 8108.7 5.6 1969 8085.0 8482.8 8552.5 8528.3 5.2 1970 8360.0 9035.0 8886.3 8937.5 4.8 1971 9110.0 9623.1 9182.3 9332.5 4.4 1972 10140.0 10249.6 9436.1 9710.0 4.0 1973 10916.8 9643.7 10066,5 3.7 1974 11627.4 9801.6 10398.5 3.3 1975 12384.3 9907.5 10702.8 2.9 1976 13190.5 9959.4 10976.5 2.6 1977 14049.2 9956.7 11216.6 2.2 1978 14963.8 9899.3 11420.8 1.8 1979 15937.8 9788.1 11586.9 1.5 1980 16975.4 9625.0 11713.2 1.1 1981 18080.4 9412.7 11798.2 .7 1982 19257.4 9154.5 11841.2 .4 1983 20511.0 8854.5 11841.6 .0 1984 21846.2 8517.2 11799.4 - .4 1985 23268.3 8147.8 11715.0 - .7 1986 24783,0 7751.6 11589.5 -1.1 1987 26396.3 7334.2 1 424.1 -1.4 1988 28114.6 6901.1 11220.5 -1.8 1989 29944.8 6457.9 10981.0 -2.1 2200 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW [Vol.10 Table 2d Projections of Average Daily Auto Count, Ail Hwys. to LV, Both Directions MOUKLA MODELB MODELC CONS'rANTCOEF = 9.1()40(K) 9.019000 OO.'iMHS.T TIMECOEF= .053000 .083060 .070734 TIME SQUARED COEF= -.001879 -.001109 INFO CONTENT 265 381 646 WEIGHT IN MODELC .410 .590 YEAR TRUE VALUE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE %GROW 1957 8991.2 8258.5 8551.4 1958 8556.0 9480.6 8956.9 9168.0 7.2 1959 9732.0 9996.6 9677.9 9807.4 7.0 1960 10931.0 10540.7 10417.8 10468.0 6.7 1961 10764.0 11114.4 11172.1 11148.4 6.5 1962 12329 0 11719.4 11936.1 11846.8 6.3 1963 13060.0 12357.3 12704.6 12561.0 6.0 1964 13304.0 13029.9 13471.7 13288.8 5.8 1965 14444.0 13739.1 14231.7 14027.6 5.6 1966 15973.0 14486.9 14978.0 14774.7 5.3 1967 15354.0 15275.4 15704.5 15527.1 5.1 1968 15920.0 16106.9 16404.3 16281.7 4.9 1969 15790.0 16983.5 17071.1 17035.2 4.6 1970 16980.0 17907.9 17698.4 17784.0 4.4 1971 18460.0 18882.7 18279.9 18524.7 4.2 1972 20130.0 19910.5 18809.6 19253.5 3.9 1973 20994.2 19282.2 19966.6 3.7 1974 22136.9 19692.4 20660.3 3.5 1975 23341.8 20036.0 21330.7 3.2 1976 24612.3 20309.0 21974.1 3.0 1977 25951.9 20508.6 22586.8 2.8 1978 27364.4 20632.5 23165.2 2.6 1979 28853.9 20679.2 23705.7 2.3 1980 30424.4 20648.3 24205.2 2.1 1981 32080.4 20540.1 24660.4 1.9 1982 33826.5 20355.9 25068.6 1.7 1983 35667.7 20097.6 25427.1 1.4 1984 37609.1 19768.2 25733.5 1.2 1985 39656.1 19371.2 25986.0 1.0 1986 41814.6 18911.0 26182.9 .8 1987 44090.5 18392.5 26322.8 .5 1988 46490.3 17821.1 26404.9 .3 1989 49020.8 17202.7 26428.6 .1 1978] LAW SCHOOL STUDY 2201 Projection of Las Vegas Commercial and Resort Hotel-Motel Rooms CONSTANT COEF M"25TO0^ TIMECOEF= 078270 TIME SQUARED COEF = INFO CONTENT 489 WEIGHT IN MODEL C .425 YEAR TRUE VALUE 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 3.2 4.8 4.8 4.7 5.2 7.2 7.1 7.1 7.6 8.0 9.9 10.3 11.4 11.4 12.1 12.3 14.0 15.0 15.9 16.8 ESTIMATE 3.8 4.1 4.4 4.8 5.1 5.6 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.6 8.2 8.9 9.6 10.4 11.3 12.2 13.2 14.2 15.4 16.6 18.0 19.5 21.1 22.8 24.6 26.6 28.8 31.1 33.7 36.4 39.4 42.6 46.0 49.8 53.8 58.2 63.0 68.1 MODELB 1.120000 .112560 -.001630 661 .575 ESTIMATE 3.1 3.4 3.8 4.2 4.7 5.2 5.7 6.2 6.8 7.4 8.0 8.7 9.4 10.1 10.8 11.5 12.2 13.0 13.7 14.4 15.2 15.9 16.6 17.2 17.9 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0 20.4 20.7 21.0 21.2 21.3 21.4 21.4 21.3 21.2 MODELC 1.207147 .097983 -.000937 1151 ESTIMATE 3.3 3.7 4.1 4.4 4.9 5.3 5.8 6.3 6.9 7.5 8.1 8.8 9.5 10.2 11.0 11.8 12.6 13.5 14.4 15.3 16.3 17.3 18.3 19.4 20.5 21.6 22.7 23.8 24.9 26.1 27.2 28.3 29.5 30.6 31.7 32.7 33.8 34.8 % GROWTH. C 10.2 10.0 9.8 9.6 9.4 9.2 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.3 8.1 7.9 7.7 7.5 7.3 7.1 6.9 6.7 6.5 6.3 6.1 5.9 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.1 5.0 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.0 2202 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 10 Table 2f Projection of Las Vegas Convention Attendance (000) MODELA CONSTANT COE F = 4.396000 TlMECOEF= .141150 TIME SQUARED COEF = INFO CONTENT 139 WEIGHT IN MODEL C .422 YEAR TRUE VALUE ESTIMATE 1962 81.1 1963 79.0 93.4 1964 95.0 107.6 1965 157.0 123.9 1966 154.0 142.7 1967 155.0 164.3 1968 207.0 189.2 1969 219.0 217.9 1970 269.0 250.9 1971 312.0 289.0 1972 290.0 332.8 1973 357.0 383.2 1974 441.3 1975 508.2 1976 585.3 1977 674.0 1978 776.2 1979 893.9 1980 1029.4 1981 1185.4 1982 1365.1 1983 1572.1 1984 1810.4 1985 2084.8 1986 2400.9 1987 2764.9 1988 3184.0 1989 3666.7 MODELB MODELC 4.191000 4 277.523 .253568 .206120 -.007877 -.004552 190 330 .578 ESTIMATE ESTIMATE % GROWTH, C 66.1 72.1 84.5 88.2 22.3 106.3 106.9 21.2 131.7 128.4 20.1 160.7 152.8 19.0 192.9 180.2 18.0 227.9 210.7 16.9 265.1 244.0 15.8 303.5 280.1 14.8 342.1 318.6 13.7 379.5 359.1 12.7 414.5 401.0 11.7 445.6 443.8 10.7 471.6 486.7 9.7 491.3 529.0 8.7 503.8 569.7 7.7 508.6 607.9 6.7 505.3 642.9 5.7 494.3 673.7 4.8 475.9 699.5 3.8 451.0 719.8 2.9 420.8 734.0 2.0 386.5 741.6 1.0 349.4 742.5 .1 310.9 736.7 - .8 272.3 724.4 -1.7 234.8 705.7 -2.6 199.3 681.3 -3.5 1978] LA W SCHOOL STUDY 2203 Table 2g Projections of Clark County Gaming Revenues, Expressed in Dollars MODELA MODELB MODELC CON.STANTCOEF = 4 .045000 4.098000 4.073131 TIME COEF = .09,3432 .079731 .086160 TIME SQUARED COEF = .000623 .000331 INFOCONTENT 2375 2687 5062 WEIGHT IN MODELC .469 .531 YEAR TRUE VALUE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE %GROWT 1952 57.1 60.2 58.7 1953 62.4 62.7 65.3 64.0 9.0 1954 69.0 68.8 70.8 69.9 9.1 1955 75.2 75.6 76.9 76.3 9.2 1956 84.2 83.0 83.7 83.4 9.3 1957 94.2 91.1 91.1 91.1 9.3 1958 •97.8 100.0 99.4 99.7 9.4 1959 121.3 109.8 108.5 109.1 9.5 1960 121.1 120.6 118.6 119.5 9.5 1961 129.0 132.4 129.8 131.0 9.6 1962 149.0 145.4 M2.3 143.7 9.7 1963 153.8 159.6 156.1 157.7 9.8 1964 173.3 175.2 171.5 173.2 9.8 1965 179.4 192.4 188.6 190.4 9.9 1966 193.1 211.3 207.8 209.4 10.0 1967 209.5 231.9 229.1 230.4 10.0 1968 250.8 254.7 252.9 253.7 10.1 1969 296.8 279.6 279.6 279.6 10.2 1970 317.5 307.0 309.5 308.3 10.3 1971 329.3 337.0 343.0 340.2 10.3 1972 380.0 370.1 380.6 375.6 10.4 1973 446.8 406.3 422.9 415.0 10.5 1974 446.1 470.4 458.8 10.6 1975 489.8 523.9 507.6 10.6 1976 537.7 584.3 562.0 10.7 1977 590.4 652.4 622.5 10.8 1978 648.2 729.4 690.1 10.9 1979 711.7 816.4 765.5 10.9 1980 781.4 915.0 849.7 11.0 1981 a57.9 1026.7 943.8 11.1 1982 942.0 1153.6 1048.9 11.1 1983 1034.2 1297.7 1166.6 11.2 1984 1135.5 1461.7 1298.4 11.3 1985 1246.7 1648.4 1445.9 11.4 1986 1368.8 1861.3 1611.3 11.4 1987 1502.9 2104.3 1796.9 11.5 1988 1650.0 2382.1 2005.1 11.6 1989 1811.6 2699.8 2238.9 11.7 2204 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW (Vol.10 Table 2h Projections of Clark County Bank Deposits, Expressed in 1967 Dollars MODELA MODELB MODELC CONSTANT COEF = 4 986000 4.866000 4.918079 TIME COEF = 095546 .137848 .119489 TIME SQUAREDCOEF = .002644 -.001497 INET) CONTENT 349 455 803 WEIGHTINMODELC .434 .566 YEAR TRUE VALUE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ' !i, GROWTH, 1957 146.3 129.8 136.7 1958 147.1 161.0 148.6 1,53.9 12.5 1959 162.4 177.2 169.2 172.6 12.2 1960 180,9 194.9 191.7 193.1 11,9 1961 217.1 214.5 216.0 215.3 11.5 1962 284.2 236.0 242.0 239.4 112 1963 295.2 259.6 269.9 265,4 10,9 1964 303.1 285,7 299.3 293,3 10.5 1965 307.9 314.3 330.2 323.2 10.2 1966 319.7 345.8 362.3 355.1 9.9 1967 401.5 ,380.5 395.5 388.9 9.5 1968 438.3 418.6 429.4 424.7 9.2 1969 448.5 460.6 463.8 462.4 8.9 1970 471.6 506.8 498.3 502.0 8.6 1971 573.9 557.6 532.5 543.3 8.2 1972 572.9 613.5 566.1 586.2 7.9 1973 675.0 598.7 630.7 7.6 1974 742.7 629.7 676.5 7.3 1975 817.2 658.9 723.4 6.9 1976 899.1 685.8 771.3 6.6 1977 989.2 710.1 820.0 6.3 1978 1088.4 731.3 869.0 6.0 1979 1197.5 749.2 918.3 5.7 1980 1317.6 763.4 967.5 5.4 1981 1449.7 773.9 1016.2 5.0 1982 1595.0 780.3 1064.2 4.7 1983 1755.0 782.7 1111.1 4.4 1984 1930.9 780.9 1156.7 4.1 1985 2124 5 775.0 1200.5 3.8 1986 2337.5 765.1 1242.3 3.5 1987 2571.8 751.3 1281.6 3.2 1988 2829.7 733.9 1318.3 2.9 1989 3113.4 713.1 1351.9 2.6 1978] LAW SCHOOL STUDY 2205 Table 2i Projections of Nevada State Use Tax Collections, Expressed in 1967 Dollars MODELA CONSTANT COEF =3.086000 TIMECOEF= .074595 TIME SQUARED COEF = INFO CONTENT 286 WEIGHTINMODELC .406 YEAH TRUEVALUE 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 23.6 23.8 24.8 27.7 29.3 36.3 43.4 45.1 47.0 50.2 49.4 51.3 54.3 62.0 63.8 67.9 ESTIMATE 21.9 23.6 25.4 27.4 29.5 31.8 34.2 36.9 39.8 42.8 46.2 49.7 53.6 57.7 62.2 670 72.2 77.8 83.8 90.3 97.3 104.8 113.0 121.7 131.1 141.3 152.2 164.0 176.7 190.4 205.2 221.1 238.2 256.6 276.5 MODELB 2.959000 .116905 -.002489 418 .594 ESTIMATE 19.3 21.6 2'4.1 26.8 29.6 32.5 35.5 38.7 41.9 45.1 48.4 51.6 54.8 57.9 60.8 63.6 66.2 68.5 70.6 72.4 73.8 74.9 75.7 76.0 76.0 75.6 74.9 73.8 72.3 70.5 68.4 66.1 63.5 60.7 57.8 MODELC 3.010625 .099706 -.001477 704 ESTIMATE 20.3 22.4 24.6 27.0 29.5 32.2 35.0 37.5 41.0 44.2 47.5 50.8 54.3 57.8 61.4 65.0 68.6 72.1 75.7 79.2 82.6 85.9 89.0 92.1 94.9 97.5 99.9 102.1 104.0 105.6 106.9 108.0 108.7 109.1 109.2 % GROWTH, C 10.3 10.0 9.7 9.3 9.0 8.7 8.4 8.1 7.7 7.4 7.1 6.8 6.5 6.2 5.9 5.5 5.2 4.6 4.6 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.1 2.8 2.5 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.0 .7 .4 .1 2206 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 10 Table 2j Projections of Reno Resort Employment (000) MOnKI.A CONSTAN r f'OKF ^ 1 TIMKCOEF- .063466 TIME SQUAREDCOEF = INFO CONTENT 1064 WEIGHT IN MOUELC .514 YEAR TRUE VALUE 1956 MODEI.B 1.64,5000 .066510 -.000169 1007 .486 MODELC 1.6501,17 .064946 -.000082 2071 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1937 1988 1989 5.5 5.8 6.4 6.9 7.1 7.6 8.3 9.0 9.6 9.9 10.2 10.5 11.5 12.7 1.5.0 14.6 14.7 IMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMAT 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.9 5.9 5.9 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.7 6.7 6.7 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.7 7.7 7.7 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.7 8.7 8.7 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.9 9.9 9.9 10.5 10.6 10.5 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.9 12.0 11.9 12.7 12.7 12.7 13.6 13.5 13.5 14.4 14.4 14.4 15.4 15.3 15.3 16.4 16.2 16.3 17.5 17.2 17.4 18.6 18.3 18.5 19.8 19.4 19.6 21.1 20.6 20.9 22.5 21.9 22.2 24.0 23.2 23.6 25.6 24.6 25.1 27.3 26.0 26.7 29.0 27.6 28.3 ,30.9 29.2 30.1 33.0 30.9 32.0 35.1 32.7 33.9 37.4 34.6 36.0 39.9 36.6 38.3 42.5 38.7 40.6 GROWTH. C 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.1 1978] LAW SCHOOL STUDY 2207 Table 2k Projections of Daily Auto Traffic on 1-80, California to Reno, Nevada MODELA MODELB MODELC CONSTANTCOEF= 8.607000 8.484000 8.505188 TIME COEF = .074249 .130905 .121145 TIME SQUAREDCOEF = -.004721 -.003908 INFO CONTENT 241 1159 1401 WEIGHT IN MODELC .172 .828 1401 YEAR TRUE VALUE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE %GROWTH,C 1962 5469.8 4836.8 4940.3 1963 5465.0 5891.4 5487.3 5554.8 12.4 1964 6010.0 6345.5 6166.7 6197.2 11.6 1965 7040.0 6834.6 6865.2 6859.9 10.7 1966 7695.0 7361.3 7571.0 7534.5 9.8 1967 8455.0 7928.7 8270.9 8210.9 9.0 1968 8970.0 8539.8 8950.6 8878.4 8.1 1969 9175.0 9198.0 9595.1 9525.5 7.3 1970 10141.0 9907.0 10189.3 10140.1 6.5 1971 10675.0 10670.5 10718.7 10710.4 5.6 1972 11350.0 11493.0 11169.6 11224.6 4.8 1973 11550.0 12378.8 11530.1 11672.0 4.0 1974 13332.9 11790.3 12042.7 3.2 1975 14360.5 11943.2 12328.5 2.4 1976 15467.3 11984.3 12522.8 1.6 1977 16659.5 11912.6 12621.1 .8 1978 17943.5 11730.0 12621.1 .0 1979 19326.5 11441.7 12522.9 - .8 1980 20816.1 11055.5 12328.8 -1.6 1981 22420.5 10582.0 12043.1 -2.3 1982 24148.6 10033,7 11672.5 -3.1 1983 26009.8 9424.3 11225.2 -3.8 1984 28014.5 8768.7 10711.1 -4.6 1985 30173.7 8082.1 10140.9 -5.3 1986 32499.4 7379.2 9526.3 -6.1 1987 35004.3 6674.2 8879.3 -6.8 1988 37702.2 5979.7 8211.8 -7.5 1989 40608.1 5307.2 7535.3 -8.2 PART V. NEVADA COMPARATIVE FINANCIAL DATA RELEVANT TO LAW SCHOOL COSTS. Appendix. 1. TablePopulation and Personal Income. 2. TableState Revenue, by Type of Tax: 1972. 3. TableExpenditure by Type and Function; 1972. 4. TableRelation of Selected Financial Items to Personal Income: 1972. 2208 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 10 I. Table—Population and Personal Income. Supplementary Reference Data Table 20. Population and Personal Income Totul population, excluding Arm«d Personal income calendar State government portion of Forcesuveraeaa' year 1971' State liocal totalst percent* July 1.1972 July 1.1971 Amount Per capita Tax revenue Payrolla State (proviaional (proviaionai (millionaof in fiacal for October eatimateal eatimateal dullers) (dollara) 1970 7 P 197P AM.STATES^ 2U7.484.000 205.465,000 852,667 4.150 54.5 27.4 AIABAMA 3,510.000 3.487.000 10,765 3.087 74.0 38 1 AIJKSKA 325.000 313.000 1,525 4.875 699 57 8 ARIZONA 1.945,000 1.862.000 7.287 3.913 61 I 299 ARKANSAS 1.978.000 1,951.000 6.005 3,078 72.6 38.7 CAI.IFORNIA 20.468.000 20,286,000 94.118 4,640 465 209 COLORADO 2.357.000 2.277,000 9.457 4,153 502 370 CONNECTICUT 3.082.000 3,068.000 15.322 4,995 48.4 32.8 DEI-AWARE 565.000 559,000 2.610 4.673 79.7 41 2 FLORIDA 7.259.000 7,025,000 27,611 3,930 60 I 240 GEORGIA 4.720.000 4,664,000 16,786 3.599 639 307 HAWAII 809.000 790,000 3.694 4.738 76.4 73.8 IDAHO 756.000 737.000 2.511 3.409 640 37.3 II.LINOIS n.251.000 11,182,000 53.400 4.775 54.6 229 INDIANA 5.291.000 5.244,000 21.120 4,027 497 27.9 IOWA 2.883.000 2,860,000 11.088 3,877 49.8 299 KANSAS 2.258.000 2,257.000 9.460 4,192 49.2 337 KENTUCKY 3,299.000 3.276.000 10,830 3.306 73.2 39.5 LOUISIANA 3.720,000 3.693.000 12,010 3,252 70.7 35.8 MAINE 1.029,000 1,012.000 3,416 3,376 55.5 , 36.4 MARYLAND 4,056.000 4.007,000 18.119 4,522 56.8 297 MASSACHUSETTS 5,787.000 5.762.000 26,285 4.562 474 277 MICHIGAN 9,082.000 8,996,000 39,850 4,430 57.5 250 MINNESOTA 3.896.000 3,860.000 15,564 4,032 568 267 MISSISSIPPI 2.263.000 2,250,000 6,273 2.788 73.7 35.6 MISSOURI 4.753.000 4,717.000 18.587 3,940 499 28.7 MONTANA 719.000 710,000 2.575 3.629 45.3 41.0 NEBRASKA 1.525.000 1,508.000 6.077 4,03U 451 30.3 NEVADA 527.000 510.000 2,460 4,822 58.7 30.0 NEW HAMPSHIRE 771.000 758,000 2.877 3,796 41 4 39.1 NEWJERSEY 7,367.000 7.306,000 35.146 4.811 41 2 23 1 NEW MEXICO 1,065.000 1.045,000 3.448 3.298 78.9 389 NEWVORK 18.366.000 18.349.000 91,742 5.000 49.3 19.3 NORTH CAROLINA 5.214.000 5.158,000 17,661 3,424 74.9 33.2 NORTH DAKOTA 632.000 628.000 2,222 3,538 54.2 38.5 OHIO 10.78.3,000 10.739.000 44,833 4,175 451 239 OKIJ^HOMA 2.631,000 2.600.000 9,140 3,515 64 1 38.8 OREGON 2.182,000 2,1.39,000 8.470 3.959 494 35.7 PENNSYLVANIA 11.926.000 11,901,000 49.349 4,147 586 272 RHODE ISLAND 968,000 969.000 3,967 4,126 608 393 SOUTH CAROLINA 2,665.000 2.663,000 8,274 3.142 76.6 37.3 SOtfTH DAKOTA 679.000 674,000 2,321 3,441 41.7 36.5 TENNESSEE 4,031,000 3,994,000 13,183 3,300 61.0 297 TEXAS 11,^49,000 11,428,000 42.582 3,726 559 268 UTAH 1.126.000 1.095.000 3.768 3.442 63 1 43 0 VERMONT 462.000 454.000 1.650 3.638 62 2 520 VIRGINIA 4.764.000 4.720.000 18.400 3.899 592 359 WASHINGTON 3,443.000 3.442.000 14.221 4.132 67.0 34.8 WESTVIRGINIA 1,781.000 1.768,000 5.789 3,275 74.5 42 7 WISC:ONSIN 4.520,000 4,473,000 17.496 3,912 594 28.6 WYOMING 345,000 339,000 1,331 3,929 56.7 369 1. Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 488. 2. U.S. Department of Commerce, Survey of Current Business, August, 1972. 3. Bureau of the Census, Governmental Finances in 1970-71. 4. Bureau of the Census, Public Employment in 1971. 5. Totals do not include data for the District of Columbia. Source: State Government Finances in 1972, U.S. Department of Commerce. 1978) LAW SCHOOL STUDY 2209 tr/ ' MUA. State Tax Collections in 1972 Table 3. State Tax Revenue, by Type of Tax: 1972 (Thousands of dollars) receipts S(:it«' Total (Tnhle4) Numht-rofStiitea UNinKtnx W) -50 Ail KtHtea "I9.H2H;W7 «3,2.I4..5I6 Altihitmii 817.671 .5R3,.596 Alnftka 102.084 23.405 Anronii .59.5,41.1 361,950 Ark.inotia 459.780 297.389 f nliforniii 6,740.222 3,362.272 Colorado 602,18.3 322.9^5 Connecticut 988,.5.39 688,420 Delaware 258.7:11 60,.514 Florida 1.996,.337 1,.522.010 CiHirgia 1,198,0.35 800,048 Hawaii .388,861 245.378 Idaho 200.062 101,955 lllinoia .3.-397.844 1.991,573 Indiana 1.187.234 771,4.52 Iowa 7.59.410 .399.295 Kanaaa .527,813 324..547 Kentucky 860,927 .549,610 Liuiainna 1.105.116 .557.-34.5 Mnine 263,575 187.646 Miiryland 1.272.413 596.845 MoxAachuaetta 1.805.335 679,928 MirhigHn 3.0.32.665 1 ..565.,319 Minneaota 1.324.471 580.668 Miaaiaaippi .588.236 450.644 Miaaouri 1.047.247 603,007 Montana 182.817 62.a'i6 Nebraska 319,480 212.524 Neviida 180.86.3 151.721 New Miimpahire 1.39,175 82.514 New Jersey 1.626,285 1.096.378 New Mexico .356.,373 219.639 New York 7.020.209 2.864.4.52 NnrthCaniiina 1.460.869 789,4.53 North Dakota 157,807 101,874 Ohio 2.189413 I.51.5.0A5 Oklahoma 64.5.460 335.415 Oregon .507,914 121.922 Pennsylvania 3.862.969 1.968.947 Rhode Island .300.907 I76,ft33 South Carnlrna 682.840 453,722 South Dakota 1.31,-347 112.-367 Tennessee 887.450 622,789 Texas 2..571,960 1,801,817 Utah 307.915 179.709 Vermont 158.2-53 81,842 Virginia 1.188,766 6t>4,.541 Washington 1.174.568 927,408 West Virginia .529.38.5 -386.455 Wisconsin 1.628.043 692.883 Wyoming 97.145 65.229 Corpo Indi ration Licenses vidua! net (TnhleS) income income Property 50 44 46 43 5.369.47312,992.280 4.401.460 1.2.56.796 66,834 118.994 32,908 a5,.T55 16.616 39.112 6,455" fx) 36.592 94,577 28,126 68.5,37 45,9.37 70,150 31,.568 1.078 390,214 1.838,.503 661,071 264,695 49,2.38 174.269 36,463 2.328 66.284 60.968 122,948 (x) 78,577 90.688 17,518 339 245,092 (x) 27,874 79.198 •56,960 239.900 88,928 4.055 .5,642 120.063 13.532 (X) 28.886 50,191 12.894 810 319.591 843.251 173,912 2.777 81.665 283,669 10.526 22.226 99.254 202.158 37,109 121 53.369 95.345 33.153 11.330 51,459 156.369 53,903 28,477 79.422 105,354 79.523 29.117 ^5.951 28,179 8.586 5.819 79.043 456.854 77.441 36.273 74.266 743.628 239.264 273 .347.273 726,287 267.303 92.966 95.095 483,215 112.403 2.868 38,117 54,655 22,953 4,345 114.974 254.063 52,218 3,818 24.653 68.082 11.523 7.492 40.013 54.170 10.106 508 15.632 (X) (XI 12.621 22.255 6.618 16.340 4,362 250.419 23.258 119,528 62.075 26.842 44.068 13,211 15.030 365.333 2,516.257 781,010 14,738 134.330 361.816 123.502 28,551 21.785 19.506 8.872 1,476 ^36.334 111.269 134.698 65.515 90.689 97,759 28.014 (X) 78.818 251,226 40.606 SO 480,643 730.641 481,600 35,672 20.455 66.416 28.619 (X) 36.044 127,708 52.312 2.048 17.409 (*) '860 (X) 135.230 13.598 77.004 (X) 367.262 (X) (X) 61.589 20.085 74.096 12,636 14.634 17,180 46.102 6.593 316 95.760 365.379 77.642 14.392 82.517 (X) 4.660 (X) 31.341 2,250 (X) 68.572 4.557 4,474 (X) (X) (X) 844 631 (XI 684 (X) (X) 128 (X) 488 273 4.889 721 .579 546 (x| 74.627 (X) (X) (X) (X) 1.665 36.878 (X) (X) (xl 177.286 (X) (X) 301,133 (X) 23.215 (X) (X) (XI 2 988 25.648 988 3.306 (X) (X) (x) 25.648 664 (X) (X) (X) 18,725 73.342 (X) 1,516 (X) 12.911 2.381 fx) (X) (xl 124.394 (X) (X) 41.072 (K) 8,984 (X) (X) 400 (Xl 6,535 (X) (X) 4.471 (Xl 2,721 (X) (X) (X) (X) 26,979 (X) 23.02, and individual income taxes, $15.42. Source: Stale Govemmem Finances in 1972, U.S. Departmenl of Commerce. 2212 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 10 PART VI. BUDGRT PROJICTION-S. Budget Projections. (a) Budget Projections for the Planning Year. (b) Budgeting for the First-Year Class (c) Further General Budgetary Projections. (d) Physical Facilities—Temporary and Permanent. Basic Assumptions: To project cost for the planning year and the first year of operation for a Law School for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, requires certam assumptions concerning the nature and quality of the Law School to be initiated These assumptions will be the subject of extended comment and explanation in the full Law School Study being prepared for the Universi^ of Nevada, Las Vegas. For present purposes, the assumptions will be shortly stated: (1) It is assumed that the planning year might be the fiscal year, 1975-76 To secure the Dean and get the planning activity under way at the beginning of the fiscal year will require six months or more of lead time. One must take into account the likelihood that the Dean, upon selection, would probably have present commitments limiting his availability to a part-time or part-year basis. It is probable that the planning period would occupy all of fiscal 1975-76. During 1974-75, provision should be made to cover a salary for the new Dean, or consulting fees for his service, during the portion of the year before he is fully "on board." Some additional funds for travel, secretarial services and the like may be required. In addition, some provision might be required in 1974-75 to begin to plan for the permanent home to be built for the Law School. Interim costs of the sort just described are not further elaborated. As a rough estimate, $50,000 probably will cover costs to be encountered in 1974-75, apart from any law building planning costs. (2) Although the ultimate size of the Law School, within limits, would not greatly affect the cost of the planning year or the first year of academic operation, it may be well to state that the Law School envisaged by the Consultants for the University will be the smallish, medium-sized Law School. In concrete terms, an entering class in the 70-90-student range is contemplated as appropriate for Nevada, with its population, economic base and probable absorptive capacity for law graduates. 1978] LAW SCHOOL STUDY 2213 (3) A school offering full-time or day classes only is contemplated. If evening classes were to be added, additional costs would be encountered. Total student numbers would not seem to justify an evening program. To begin the only Law School in the State of Nevada with both a day and evening division school would prejudice the quality of school in absolute terms as respects total financial costs and in terms of prestige, taking into account of the fact that some evening division schools are not adequately financed and, accordingly, do not stand high in the world of education. (4) Although the costs of the Planning Year and the first year of academic operation would not be much affected, the Law School envisaged for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, would be a school adequately financed to undertake what has come to be described as "Law Center" function—embracing, among other things, responsibility for development of programs of Continuing Education for the Bar, responsibility for organized legal research to assist the Legislature and other branches of Government and further functions characteristic of Law Centers. The cost of those added functions, which extend beyond the central responsibility of educating law students, will appear most significantly in budgetary projections for the second and third years of the Law School's operation. (5) The capital costs for the Law School, notably capital costs for the Law Library and for the Law Building, are separately treated. (6) The inflation factor as to all items of cost will require adjustment of the figures here presented to take account on lapse of time between the present projection and the actual incurred expenditures. (7) The budget figures offered in this Memorandum are intended to provide adequate financing, even if development should be fully on schedule. That is quite unlikely. Even though a Dean were fully on board at the start of fiscal 1975-76, there surely would be an appreciable delay in recruitment of other key personnel. Accordingly, it is likely that there will be substantial underexpenditure in both the Planning Year and the First Year of Ojjcration. Those apparent economies will fade, however, as personnel and program catch up to the planned scope of activity. 2214 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW [Vol.10 (a) Budget Projections for the Planning Year: The salary figures used are set substantially at the level of the median salaries for law deans, librarians and law professors. The national figures, as reported by the Section of Legal Education of the American Bar Association, reveal that, in the Mountain States Region, salaries at the better law schools— Utah, Colorado, Arizona and Arizona State—are at or above the national median figures. It is not contemplated that the University of Nevada should endeavor to lead the way on salary levels in legal education. The assumption, rather, is that salaries for law faculty in Nevada should be competitive with the good Law Schools of the Region. (The figures are offered in terms of 1974-75 dollars.) (1) Administration—Dean's Office Salaries Dean $ 36.000 - $ 40,000 AsaociateDean $ 27,000 - t 30,000 Secretary $ 8,000 (Administrative Assistant) Clerical Assistant (Wages) S 6.500 Total $ 77,500 - $ 84,500 (2) Law Library—Salaries and Wages Salaries Librarian $ 23,000 - S 28,000 Assistant Librarian $ 14,000 - $ 17,000 Cataloguer $ 12,000 Secretary $ 6,000 Part-time Help (Wages) S 5.000 Total $ 60,000 - $ 68,600 1978] LAW SCHOOL STUDY 2215 (3) Operations—Brochure, Bulletin, Application Forms, Travel, etc. Salaries Brochure, bulletin, $ 7,000 application forms Travel $ 8,000 Office equipment and $ 8,500 office supplies (typewriters, dictating machines, desks, photo copy equipment) Telephone 8 2.500 Total 8 26,000 Planning Year Total Planning Activity 8179.100 Law Library Capital 81(X).0(X)* Total 8279,100 'Plus $150,000 from private funds given for Law Library development. (b) Budgeting for the First-Year Class: (Figures used here are cast in terms of 1974-1975 dollars and an inflation factor will be required.) (1) Administration—Dean's Office Salaries Dean $ 40.000 Associate Dean $ 30,000 Secretary $ 9,000 (Administrative Assistant) Secretary $ 6,500 Clerical Employee—technical $ 7,500 (course materials, reproduction) Office Assistant $ 7,500 (Secretary for Admissions) Outer-Office Receptionist and typist (2) $ 12,000 Travel 8 9.000 i- t 4 2216 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 10 (2) Inslruclion , Salaries Faculty (4) Faculty Secretary (I) Operatiuns (xeroxing and reproduction of course materials, office supplies, telephone, student organizations, financial assistance. Law School Paper or Newssheet, visiting lecturers expenses and honoraria and annual Bulletin or Catalogue of the Law School) Capital equipment for instruction (typewriters, desks, equipment for reproduction of course materials) Total $100,000 $ 6,000 $ 35,000 S 5.000 $146,000 (3) Law Library—Operating Costs Salaries Librarian Assistant Librarian Cataloguer Reference Librarian Secretary Part-Time Personnel Total $ 29,000 $ 17,000 $ 14,000 $ 12,000 $ 7,000 » 6.000 $ 85,000 The total first-year operating budget (excluding capital for Law Library and Law Building) Law Library Capital First-Year Operation Total Budget •Plus $I.S0,0(X) from privale funds given for Law Library developmenl. $352,500 $100.000* $452,500 The Law Library Capital Requirements—Planning Year and Thereafter: Although the standards of the two accrediting organizations, the Section of Legal Education of the American Bar Association and the Association of American Law Schools, both specify required minimal library holdings, it is generally recognized that accreditation of a new law school is not likely to be extended if the library holdings simply meet the bare 1978] LA W SCHOOL STUDY 2217 minimum. This position of requiring more from newly-organized schools is formalized in the "Policy Statement on Accreditation of New Law Schools issued by the Association of American Law Schools. The same policy is, in fact, administered by the Section of Legal Education of the American Bar Association. Accordingly, for a newly organizing school, a first goal for the law library of 50,(X)0 volumes by the end of the third year of the school s operation (which would coincide with the graduation of the first class) is an acceptable and feasible goal, assuming adequate financing. The second pal would be to achieve a collection of IOO,(XX) volumes by the end of the sixth year of the school's actual operation. To meet the first goal, in terms of law library development, would require, in the early years of the school's life, capital in the range of $500,000 to $700,000. It is difficult to estimate, in advance, the actual cost of the beginning collection. There may be fortuitous and advantageous acquisitions. On the other hand, more recently published material is becoming very expensive, indeed. There is, as well, the matter of the extent to which a new law library may wish to go for microfiche or other book substitutes. In the year of planning and development before enrollment of the first class, at least $250,000 should be available for library capital expenditure (including, in that term, a modest amount for book binding and, of course, for shelving). An additional $250,000-$300,000 should be available for the second year, when the first entering class actually arrives on the scene. Thereafter, in light of the inflated condition of the dollar, capital outlay of $150,000 per year for the law library should continue, at least until the second goal is reached and probably $125,000 thereafter, as the dollar will be subject to continuing erosion in terms of real purchasing power. Accordingly, to arrive at the overall budgetary requirement for the projected new Law School during the Planning Year and during the First Year of Actual Operation, there must be added to the direct operational costs outlined the capital needs for the library. In addition, of course, there is the matter of physical facilities. (c) Further General Budgetary Projections; After the first full year of operation, the school will receive its second entering class. The following year, the school would be in full operation with three classes in residence. TTiere will be a sharp upward movement in the budget when the original entering class moves into its third and final year. Teaching in small groups, small sections, seminars and in clinical activities characteristic of the final year will substantially enlarge the faculty and supporting staff. TTie Law Review should then be in full operation. At 2218 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 10 thai point, the school will be fully operational and its costs will be those of other good law schools for the Region. In 1973-74 in the Mountain States Region, the better law schools ran with budgets that reflected per-studeni costs (exclusive of maintenance, depreciation and overhead) in the range of $2000 to $2700. A school in the 200-250 student range is a bit more expensive on a per-student basis than one in the 400-500 range. A per-law-student operating budget of $3000 per student, in current dollars, is believed to be a fair price to enable quality legal education under wise administration. With a student body of 200 to 250, a good Mountain States Law School in full operation at the current level of costs will be costing from $600,000 to $800,000, in current dollars, depending on the rate of Law Library growth and Law Center function activity. Enlarged enrollment and enlarged function will require a larger operating budget. Projecting that figure ahead five years will provide an estimate for the then to t)e encountered operational costs. By 1979-80, it is probably very optimistic to expect that per-student costs will be as low as $3500. A figure of $4000 for the Mountain States Region would be more realistic, but the problem basically is to gauge the pace of inflation. The Consultant has no crystal ball on that front. (d) Physical Facilities—Temporary and Permanent: (I) Temporary Accommodation. In the first year or two of the life of a new Law School, it is assumed that the school will be housed in temporary quarters. The object here is to estimate roughly the requirements for the temporary interim physical facilities needed for the beginning Law School. The space needs and the estimated requirements for the first two years of operation are as follows: Cla8Sroom(l) iSOOsq. ft. Student lounge and study area (1) 1500 sq. ft. Offices (for Dean, Associate Dean, four Professors and two Administrative Assistants) 2800 sq. ft. Secretarial Offices 450 sq.ft. Reception 250 sq.ft. Library (stack space, study space and library staff work space) 4000 sq. ft. Total 10500 sq.ft. The nature of temporary housing for the first year or two of the law school is not of critical importance. It may be possible to find space in an existing building not committed to other uses. On the other hand, a number of the recently established new law schools lived satisfactory lives in temporary housing specially erected for the purpose. What is important is 1978] LAW SCHOOL STUDY 2219 that the functions enumerated have their space and that the space be reasonably comfortable and useable. Of prime importance, of course, is library stack space to accommodate the rapidly-developing law library. Should a Law School be initiated, it is assumed that provision would be made for a permanent home for the school hopefully by the end of the second year of its operation, as the temporary space outlined would not be adequate for the third full year of Operation with three classes. (2) Permanent Physical Needs. For a student body in the 200-250 student range, with the satellite functions characteristic of a Law Center including responsibilities in the field of Continuing Education and Legal Research—a building in the range of 60,000-80,000 gross square feet will be required. It should be borne in mind that legal education is presently in a transition period—moving actively towards skill-type instruction. The teaching of the skills of advocacy, of pleading, of interviewing, counseling, drafting and negotiating require a much more intensive use of teaching staff. This means a relatively larger teaching staff with varied needs, both for office space and teaching facilities. Accordingly, the Law School building of 20 or 30 (or even 10 years ago) is not really adequate for the activities to be expected as a part of a modern law school operation. Any law building for a Law School built in Nevada should, as well, be built both with an eye for future expansion to cover both increased numbers of students and additional functions on the part of the Law Center. Summary of Budgetary Projections for Law School For Pre-planning Year (1974-7S); PlanningYear(l 9711-76): Operations $179,1(X) Library Capital 100,000* Planning Year First Year of Operation (1976-1977): Operations $352,5(X) Library Capital 100,0(X)* First Operational Year $ 50,000 $279,100 $452,500 *Plus $150,000 eacti for two years from private funds given for Law Library development. 2220 SOUTHWESTERN-NEVADA LAW REVIEW (Vol 10 Note: As expliiined in the text, the aclujtl expenditures are likely to be siihstantiatly below the budgeted amounts, because recniilment t»f personnel and expenditure of capital for the 1 aw I ibrary can be expected to lag behind the projections. No alhiwance is made m these projections for the total cost of physical facilities or such costs as building maintenance and deprecia tion. nor for any share t»f Cenlial University Administration overhead ct»sts. No inflation factor has been built into the figures Finally, actual expenditures will almost surely vary from the categories described in the.se projections. Projections by budget categories are simply designed to give a measure of reality to the estimating process. Experience always defines the gap between the expected and the facts of life. WARRANTLESS INFORMANT **BUGGING" IN NEVADA: A CRITICISM OF STATE V. BONDS I. IhtTRODUCnON In the recent case of Slate v. Bonds,' the Supreme Court of Nevada was presented with the question of whether evidence derived from the use of a warrantless electronic bug carried by a police informant is admissible at trial against a nonconsenting party to the bugged conversation. That court, however, left many arguments unrefuted by concluding, in a notably brief opinion, that because a participant had consented to the interception, the conversation was not an oral communication as defined by section 179 440 of the Nevada Revised Statutes,^ and that the interception, therefore, was not subject to either constitutional or statutory warrant requirements. The Nevada Supreme Court consequently felt compelled to hold such evidence admissible. This note will take a critical look at the Bonds decision. It will examine the constitutional and statutory considerations that underlie a thorough analysis of the question presented by Bonds, and it will suggest that the answer is tiot so unequivocal as the concise opinion implies. 11. FACTS OF THE CASE Charles Bonds was arrested and charged with the felony of having sold opium, a controlled substance, to a police informant who had been wired for sound. The hidden radio transmitter carried by the informant broadcasted the conversation between the informant and Bonds as the alleged illicit transaction took place. This broadcast was monitored by a police officer with whom the informant was working. The conversation overheard by the officer took place in the privacy of Bonds' home, and the transmitter was used without prior judicial authorization.' Bonds made a timely motion requesting the Nevada trial court to suppress the police officer's testimony as to what he had heard. This motion I 92 Nev. 307, 550 P.2d 409 (per curiain 1976) m«, .m' H r communication' n«ans any verbal TOSMge uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying such expectation " 3. 92 Nev. at 309-10, 550 P.2d at 410. 2221