Law School Study for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (bound)

LAW SCHOOL STUDY FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS LAW SCHOOL STUDY FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS Authors: Dean Willard H. Pedrick College of Law Arizona State University Prof. Lome Seidman Chairman, Department of Finance College of Business and Economics University of Nevada, Las Vegas TABLE OF CONTENTS Law School Study: Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations 1 Introductory Note — Scope of Study 3 Chapter I. Nevada: Population, Economy, University 7 1. Nevada's economic growth. 2. Characteristics of the State Bar of Nevada. 3. Evolution of the University of Nevada System. Chapter II. Is There a Need for a Nevada Law School? 19 1. Is there a need from the standpoint of Nevada students? a. The national picture on numbers of law applicants and first-year places. b. The law school admission prospect for young Nevadans. 2. Employment prospects for law graduates in the 1970s and 1980s. a. The national prospect. b. The placement prospects for new Nevada law graduates in the years ahead. Chapter III. What Might a New Law School do for the State Beyond the Education of Law Students? 33 1. The Law Institute function. 2. Enriching the University and enlarging its capabilities. 3. Continuing education for the Practicing Profession. Chapter IV. What Would a Law School for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Cost? 37 1. Direct financial costs. a. Operations. b. Capital needs. (1) The Law Building. (2) The Law Library. 2. Some comments on law school size, faculty size and salary levels. Chapter V. Can Nevada Afford a First-rate University Law School Now? 43 Chapter VI. Recommendations and Conclusion. 47 APPENDIX Page Parti. Principal sources used in text. 53 Part II. National data relative to law students and lawyers. 57 Part III. Nevada data relative to law students and lawyers. 77 Part IV. Extracts from Nevada's economic prospects. 105 Party. V Nevada comparative financial data relevant to law school costs. 123 Part VI. Budget projections. 131 Part VII. Statements. 143 LAW SCHOOL STUDY: SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 1. Nevada's population will grow at a spectacular rate in the years ahead. Its economy will continue to develop and will continue to provide Nevadans with one of the country's highest per-capita incomes. Consideration of a Law School for Nevada is in the setting of a State now of substantial size and strong economy with even brighter prospects ahead. 2. Although existing law schools will admit about 40,000 first-year law students this Fall of 1974, more than 100,000 young people, in fact, sought to go to law school. More than 20,000 of those who did not secure admission to law school had very strong credentials. That situation will probably continue in the years ahead—as the great increase in applications for admission to law school reflect most significantly our larger population of young people, interest in law on the part of minority groups and women and a feeling on the part of many young people that the law offers a career with significant public service opportunities. 3. Though it is hard to be certain about the future of the economy in terms of the ability of the country to absorb all the new law graduates, it is believed that lawtrained persons will find useful roles in society in the future, as has been the case in the past. 4. Young Nevadans are not motivated to study law to the same extent as in states with law schools. They do not take the Law School Admission Test in the numbers one would expect. They do not secure admission to law school in the numbers one would expect. The barriers young Nevadans face in a State without a law school in studjdng law out of state include quotas for out-of-state students in many State University Law Schools, the higher cost at private university law schools and higher tuition for nonresidents in State Law Schools and a range of personal problems involved in moving out of state for law school. 5. The Bar of Nevada has absorbed substantial numbers of new attorneys in the past decade, and it is believed the legal profession of Nevada and allied callings could absorb substantial numbers of graduates of a University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Law School—if one were in operation. 6. A University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Law School could serve the State of Nevada not only in educating law students in the legal process but could, as well, serve as a Law Center for the State to assist in continuing improvement of the legal system of the State, could enrich the University and provide opportunity for interdisciplinary research and public service projects, could assist the practicing profession in the field of continuing education and could, through its Law Library, provide the State with a first-class Law Library with research capabilities for use by the profession and by the public. 7. In full operation, a Law School of the first rank would cost the State of Nevada about $3000 per year, per student in current dollars. In full operation, the Law School in the foreseable future would have a total student body of about 200 to 250 students, and the annual operation cost (including normal expenditures on the Law Library) would fall in the $600,000 to $800,000 range in current dollars, depending on the number of public service programs. A Law Building of 60,000 to 80,000 square feet designed for legal education should be provided in the course of the first three years of the Law School's life. An entering class of 70 to 90 students, with superior credentials, could be selected from many times that number of applicants. The bulk of the students would be from Nevada, though some out-of-state students could add to the diversity and talent of the student body. Legal education is not expensive education compared to graduate education generally. Some increases in law school costs can be expected with the shift to training in practical skills, including legal clinic, internship placements and seminars in lawyering skills. 8. The question whether Nevada has now reached the point in its development where it can afford the cost of a Law School is a public or political question. The State is not now spending an excessive amount on higher education in terms of personal income of Nevada residents as compared to other states. On the basis of the experience of other smaller states in starting Law Schools in New Mexico, Utah and Arizona, it would appear that Nevada has an adequate economic base for a Law School—if it has the desire. 9. To provide opportunity for legal education for young Nevadans, to provide a center for legal studies and research for Nevada, to provide Nevada with its own lawtrained graduates to serve in public and private assignments, to enrich the University and to provide the State of Nevada with a professional school of great promise of public service and benefit to the State of Nevada, we recommend that the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, establish a Law School now. LAW SCHOOL STUDY FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS. Introductory Note — Scope of Study: After conversations in late 1973, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, engaged Dean Willard H. Pedrick of the College of Law of Arizona State University to prepare a Study on the feasibility of a Law School at the University — assigning, to assist Dean Pedrick, Professor Lome Seidman of the College of Business and Elconomics of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. The terms of the assignment are general and broad. We have been asked to address ourselves to the questions of the need for a Law School in the State of Nevada (1) from the standpoint of young Nevadans interested in studying law, (2) from the standpoint of the users of legal services, including the practicing profession, government, commerce and industry, (3) from the standpoint of the contribution to be made by a Law School to the intellectual life of the University, (4) from the standpoint of the functions to be served by a Law School with respect to the administration of justice for the benefit of the larger community, including participation in continuing education of the members of the legal profession and (5) the financial cost and feasibility of establishing a Law School within the State of Nevada, taking into account the present state of the population and economy of the State, as well as its expected prospects. We have, in this Study, addressed ourselves to these questions and offer the results of our Study as candidly as we know how. In our studies, we have been greatly assisted by a number of organizations and individuals. We are indebted to the Educational Testing Service of Princeton, New Jersey, to the American Bar Association, in its various publications, and in advice given by its Consultant on Legal Education, Dean James White of the University of Indiana at Indianapolis, to the Association of American Law Schools and its Executive Director, Professor Millard H. Ruud, to the State Bar of Nevada and to a host of individuals too numerous to mention. The original assignment given to the authors of this Study was to advise on the feasibility of establishment of a Law School at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. The question whether a Law School should be located in Las Vegas or in Reno was losolved by the Legislature by Nevada Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 48 which provided, among other things, "1. That a law school be established in the future in the State of Nevada at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas." Data developed by this Study supplies a number of factors supportive of that decision on the location question. The rapid population growth of the Clark County area, with more than 55 per cent of the population of the State makes it clear that the largest element in a law school student body would come from the Las Vegas vicinity. The growing concentration of population necessitates, of course, the accompanying features of the justice system, courts, prosecutors, larger legal aid programs, and the like. Modern legal education involves student participation in legal clinics and in placements as interns. These considerations favor the metropolitan setting for legal education. This is not to say that Reno should not be related to a Nevada Law School. The National College for the State Judiciary, already overflowing its relatively new building on the Reno campus, offers great promise as respects intern placement for several third-year law students, as do agencies of state government located in Reno. But, to serve the broad interests of the State of N evada best, the Las V egas location for a Law School is the appropriate choice. The present Study is composed of three parts — like all of Gaul. First, appears a short Summary of the Study, itself, to assist the reader who would like to know where we stand on the issues studied, without reading the whole Study and its supporting documents. The second part provides the full text of the Study. The final and third segment is an Appendix, supplying the source documents on which we have drawn for many of our conclusions. We have benefited from earlier law school studies for other universities. We have felt free to draw a number of general passages from the Delaware Law School Study, co-authored by the first-listed of the present authors. To those secretaries and compositors who assisted in the production of the Study, we express our gratitude. Finally, we must express appreciation for the continuing interest and encouragement, as well as the support, given the Study by the Advisory Committee established by the Legislature. The members of that Committee are as follows: Dr. Ralph Roske (Chairman), Professor of History, University of Nevada, Las V egas, Nevada 89154 Dr. Brock Dixon, Dean of Administration, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada 89154 Dr. Don W. Driggs, Prcrfessor of Political Science, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89507 Senator John P. Foley, 770 East Sahara Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada Mr. Robert M. Galli (Student Representative), 920 Y ork Way, Sparks, Nevada Mrs. Jan Gould, 1515 Westwood Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 Mr. Clark J. Guild, Jr., 102 Roff Way, Reno, Nevada 89501 Mr. Jack E. Hull, 530 Idaho, Elko, Nevada Mr. Jerome Mack, Valley Bank of Nevada, Post Office Box 15427, Las Vegas, Nevada Judge John F. Mendoza, 200 East Carson Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada Mrs. Herbert Nail, 102 Dio Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89109 Senator William Raggio, Post Office Box 588, Reno, Nevada Assemblyman Jack Schofield, 2000 Stockton, Las Vegas, Nevada Professor Lome H. Seidman, Chairrr an of the Finance Department, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada Mr. E. Parry Thomas, President, V ley Bank of Nevada, Post Office Box 15427, Las V egas, Nevada Mrs. Mary L. Woitishek, 920 Rancho Circle, Las Vegas, Nevada Justice David Zenoff, Supreme Court Building, Carson City, Nevada CHAPTER 1. NEVADA: POPULATION, ECONOMY, UNIVERSITY. Reliable statistics describe Nevada from 1920 to the present, 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. Since 1920, the 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. The increase of Nevada's population since 1920 is best displayed by the following table: INCREASE IN NEVADA'S POP ULA TION Population — First Year of Decade 1920 77,407 1930 91,058 1940 110,242 1950 160,083 1960 285,278 1970 448,738 Historically, Nevada has attracted large numbers of outsiders since the Comstock Lode was discovered in 1859. It has been estimated that 70 per cent of Nevada's population growth since 1950 has been the result of migration to the State. A significant new element, however, has begun to contribute to the increase of Nevada's population. This new factor is "natural" population. Nevada's "natural" population growth means that in future years a larger percentage of citizens will be native born Nevadans. Data from 1969, for example, tells us in that year Nevada's birth rate was 11 per cent higher than the national average and, during that same period, the death rate in Nevada was 14 per cent lower than the national average. The Statistical Abstract of the United States indicates that Nevada's birth rate has exceeded the national average in each year since 1960 and that the state death rate has been lower than the national average in each year since 1960. During the 1960-70 decade, 91,000 births and 31,000 deaths occurred in Nevada. It, thus, appears that, while considering the extent of Nevada's population growth, we must also realize the shifting nature of that growth. Unlike the mining camps that resulted from the rush to Nevada's gold and silver in the early 1900s, the Nevada of 1974 is significantly more stable. In addition to the size and nature of Nevada's population, a third factor becomes significant when considering the types of educational opportunities that would best serve the State's interests. This factor is the distribution of population within the State. In the early 1900s, Nevada's population lived primarily in rural mining areas. As late as 1920, less than one-fifth of Nevada's population resided in urban areas. The cities and camps that did exist in the early 1900s tended to flourish and disappear. No doubt, the Nevada of not many years ago was exciting, but it did not produce major urban areas. Early in this century, the distribution of Nevada's population began to shift and, by 1970, the change was pronounced. Today, though still comparatively small in terms of population, Nevada is a highly urbanized State. 80.9 per cent of Nevada's population now resides in urban areas, most of them in Clark County, and Nevada's "urban rank," which was 44th in 1920, was 9th in 1970. Note the complete reversal in population distribution between 1920 and 1970. In 1920, Nevada was approximately 80 per cent rural and 20 per cent urban; yet, by 1970, the State had become approximately 80 per cent urban and 20 per cent rural. This trend towards urbanization is expected to continue. It is apparent that, as Nevada's population increased in number and became concentrated in urban areas, the University of Nevada System adjusted to accommodate the change. We can clearly see the impact of population characteristics in establishment of the Reno campus, the Las V egas campus and, most recently, in the creation of the Community College Division. Because shifts in the size, nature and distribution of population influence the demand for education generally, as well as for specific programs, and because Nevada's population has, over the past 30 years, undergone significant changes with respect to size, nature and distribution, the question of establishing a Law School is now appropriate. A Law School, however, will be called upon to meet the future needs of Nevada. For this reason, we must attempt to project the profile of Nevada as it will emerge within the foreseeable future. Nevada's population will continue to grow in number; however, as the 1960-70 census information indicates, the rate of growth will level off. This leveling off will occur because, as the number of Nevadans increases, it requires ever more additions to influence a percentage change. In 1920, for example, 800 new Nevadans would have increased the State's population of 77,000 by more than one per cent; but, in 1974, an additional 800 people would increase Nevada's present population of about 550,000 by less than 0.16 per cent. Overall, the State of Nevada is expected to increase its population as follows: PROJECTED POPULA TIONFOR NEVADA Projected Population Year 1980 777,000 1990 1,082,000 2000 1,319,000 2010 1,477,000 2020 1,564,000 The table above indicates that, within 16 years, Nevada's population will almost double in size and, within 46 years, the State will more than triple the size of its present population by adding one million more people. As discussed previously, an increasing percentage of these new Nevadans will be bom within the State. The projected growth of Nevada is clearly a significant consideration. However, the distribution of the projected population is also of great importance when considering the creation of a Center for Legal Education. Not all areas of Nevada are projected to increase their population at the same rate. Nevada lies mostly in the Great Basin, enclosed on the east by the Rockies and on the west by California's Sierra Nevada and Cascade Ranges. 'These mountain ranges produce a dry climate, which makes most of Nevada primarily suitable for grazing. Nevada's rural areas are not expected to become urban centers. Esmeralda County, for example, contained 629 residents when the 1970 census was conducted and is projected to contain 700 residents in 1980 and 900 by the year 2020. In an attempt to make statistics concerning the projected distribution of Nevada's population more comprehensible, a recent study forecasting Nevada's population has grouped the State's counties (and Carson City) into four categories. The areas are then labeled according to their expected rate of growth as follows: Most Growth Clark County Fast Growth Washoe County Carson City Douglas County Moderate Growth Elko County Lyon County Slow Growth Pershing County Lander County Nye County Humboldt County Mineral County Eureka County White Pine County Lincoln County Story County Esmeralda County Projections concerning the counties designated as "slow growth" and "moderate growth" illustrate that the historical trend towards urbanization in Nevada, discussed earlier, can be expected to continue. In 1920, the "moderate growth" counties contained 28,905 residents, which was then 37.3 per cent of Nevada's population. By 1970, these counties had grown to a population of 51,717 residents, which was ten per cent of Nevada's population. By 2020, these counties are projected to contain 6.5 per cent of the State's population. The trend in "slow growth" counties is even more pronounced. These counties contained 20,738 residents in 1920, which was 26.8 per cent of the State's population. In 1970, they contained 4.2 per cent of the State's population and, by 2020, they are projected to contain 1.6 per cent of Nevada's population — although they will have grown from a population of 20,315 in 1970 to 25,200 people in 2020. The growth and projected growth of Clark County, Washoe County, Carson City and Douglas County is best displayed over a full 100-year period by the following table: POPULA TIONGRO WTHPA TTERNS A Nevada Clark County % of State Fast Growth % of State 1920 77,407 4,859 6.3 22,905 29.6 1930 91,058 8,532 9.4 31,219 34.3 1940 110,247 16,414 14.9 37,741 34.2 1950 160,083 48,289 30.2 56,406 35.2 1960 285,278 127,016 44.5 96,287 33.8 1970 488,738 273,288 55.9 143,418 29.3 1980 770,000 483,000 62.7 202,000 26.4 1990 1,082,000 715,000 66.1 267,000 24.7 2000 1,319,000 894,000 67.8 314,000 23.8 2010 1,477,000 1,016,000 68.8 344,000 23.3 2020 1,564,000 1,087,000 69.5 358,000 22.9 A — Fast Growth: Washoe County, Carson City and Douglas County By all indications, Nevada, which is now a highly urbanized State, will become even more urbanized. An urban society requires the specialized skills acquired by welleducated men and women, and it draws heavily upon those with legal educations. An urban society also finds invaluable other services, as discussed in Chapter III of this Study, that can be offered by a Center for Legal Education. 1. Nevada's Economic Growth. Nevada's economic growth will increase the demand for legal services and provide tax resources available for law school support. Significant growth is projected for the Las Vegas and Reno casino-resort industries over the next ten years. This growth will result in increased gaming tax revenues. It will also spur increased employment and incomes in "support" industries, i.e., retail trade, finance, insurance and real estate. Support activity growth is anticipated even in the absence of resort industry growth or growth of other basic, export-oriented industries. As the tables below indicate. Las Vegas has lagged the nation in percentage employment in specified support activities; it has been consistently catching up with an ever-rising national percentage employment in these service industries. SPECIFIED S UPPOR T CA TEG OR YEMPLO YMENTS, UNITED STA TESANDLAS VEGAS Total Nonagric. Total % Employment Per Cent Employed In in Specified (000) Retail FIRE (a) Service Gov't. Categories U.S. 1960 54,234 15.5% 4.9% 1.6% 11.2% 33.2% 1965 60,815 15.5 5.0 1.6 12.7 34.7 1970 70,664 15.7 5.2 1.4 14.0 36.3 Jan.1974 37.5(b) Las Vegas 1960 53.7 13.6% 2.6% 1.3% 7.3% 25.9% 1965 89.7 14.2 3.5 2.1 9.0 28.7 1970 121.1 14.8 3.5 2.1 10.0 30.3 Jan.1974 33.8 RA TIG OFLVTO U.S. PERCENTAGES EMPLOYMENTS IN ABO VE S UPPOR T CA TEGORIES LV U.S. LV:U.S. 1960 25.9% 33.2% .78 1965 28.7 34.7 .83 1970 30.3 36.3 .84 Jan. 1974 33.8 37.5 .90 NOTES (a) FIRE = Finance, Insurance and Real Estate Employment (b) January 1974 per cent employment in specified support categories is estimated from 1960-1970 pattern of 0.3% increase per year. Historically, Nevada experienced the greatest percentage of personal income growth of all States during the 1960-1970 decade and, as the table below indicates, only two metropolitan areas exceeded Las Vegas in percentage personal income growth. PERSONAL INCOME INCREASES, 1960-1970 Personal Income (*) United States 100% Fast Growth States Nevada 188% Florida 154 Arizona 133 Alaska 133 California 109 Fast Growth Metropolitan Areas Las Vegas, Nevada 11.9% per year Anaheim-Santa Ana, California 12.0 Oxnard-Ventura, California 9.1 F ort Lauderdale, Florida 12.5 San Jose, California 10.3 NOTES. TABLE2 (*) For U.S. and states, percentage personal income increase over 1960-1970 decade. For metropolitan areas, percentage annual growth rate of personal income from 1959- 1969. Nevada's impressive growth has continued into the 1970s. Employment in the State, as a whole, increased 3V2 times more rapidly than U.S. employment from the beginning of 1970 to the end of 1973. Las Vegas employment increased 2% times more rapidly than the national employment growth rate, while employment in the rest of Nevada (excluding Las Vegas) increased AV2 times more rapidly than the national growth rate. The five- and ten-year forecasts of economic activity displayed by the following table predict a strong economy for Nevada well into the 1980s. Note that these projections concern solely the expansion of industries that are now part of Nevada's economic profile. Establishment of new industries and revival of old, i.e., mining, cannot be projected with similar confidence. Yet, some developments are almost inevitable. 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 Las Vegas 15 26 5. Las Vegas Resort Rooms 30 61 6. Las Vegas Convention Attendance 45 67 7. Las Vegas Real Gross Gaming Rev.^ 67 183 8. Las Vegas Real Bank Deposits^ 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) Gaming revenues, bank deposits and tax collections expressed in 1967 dollars. (b) Transaction tax revenues, net of local school support tax; includes sales tax, gasoline, cigarette and liquor taxes. 2. Characteristics of the State Bar of Nevada. Because the students and faculty of a law school must function in a state's legal community, the nature of that community becomes relevant. In June of 1974, a questionnaire was sent to all members of the Nevada State Bar asking for information that would help construct a profile of lawyers in Nevada. Of Nevada's 865 bar members, 324 returned the questionnaire, thus, furnishing the information used in this section. Not all respondents answered all questions, but the information supplied is useful. Nevada's legal profession is clearly concentrated in the State's urban areas. Approximately one-third of the respondents practice as individuals and 47 per cent were members of partnerships or professional corporations. Nevada's lawyers indicate a commitment to professional standards: 69.5 per cent are members of the American Bar Association. This is the fifth highest percentage in the Nation. Law practice in Nevada appears to bring the lawyer in contact with a variety of legal problems as displayed by the following table: PER CENT OF TIME AND PER CENT OF GROSS INCOME A TTRIB UTED TO SPECIFIC AREAS OFPRA CTICE Washoe County and Carson City Clark County Gross Gross Time Income 'Ume Income Family Law 10.1 9.9 8.7 8.5 Real Estate Transaction 11.8 11.8 7.7 7.7 Probate 9.3 9.0 3.2 3.0 Personal Property and Property Damage 20.6 20.1 19.5 19.3 General Corporate Problems 11.3 11.3 12.0 12.0 General Commercial Problems 11.4 11.4 10.1 9.7 Tax 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.5 Criminal 11.6 11.6 15.0 15.0 Government (State and Federal) Administrative Proceedings 14.0 13.8 14.6 14.3 Naturally, this tablets not complete and many respondents indicated substantial contact with a wide variety of legal issues, i.e., labor relations, environmental problems, civil rights and bankruptcy. The diverse nature of law practice in Nevada was also reflected in response to the question asking the areas of study that should be emphasized by a Nevada Law School. However, business-orientated areas, such as corporate law, taxation and administrative law, were mentioned most often. In addition to the nature of their practice, the respondents were also asked to indicate their net income range. Only three per cent of the respondents failed to answer this question, which yielded the following results: Number of Net Income Respondents Under $15,000 34 $15,000-$25,000 112 $25,000-$50,000 117 $50K)00-$100,000 43 Over $100,000 9 An additional significant characteristic of Nevada's lawyers is their diversified background. Although nine per cent of the respondents failed to indicate in what state they resided when they applied to the law school they attended, of those that did respond, 67 per cent indicated Nevada, and the remaining 33 per cent came from 29 different states. The diversification of Nevada's Bar is further illustrated by the fact that we received 102 different answers to the question, "Where did you obtain your undergraduate education?," and 77 different schools were mentioned when we asked where the respondent obtained his or her legal education. Many of the finest colleges and universities in the country have participated in the training of Nevada's lawyers, and we conclude that Nevada lawyers would demand comparable quality firom a Nevada Law School. Of the 324 respondents to our questionnaire, 145 (or 45 per cent) indicated that they were licensed to practice law in at least one other state. In light of this mobility, the answer to our question, "Why did you accept a position or commence your practice in Nevada?," took on added interest. The answers were varied and, curiously, 11 per cent of the respondents failed to reply at all. Of the 287 who answered this question, 58 per cent appeared to be native Nevadans returning home to their growing State, and 33 per cent arrived in Nevada because of the opportunity to prosper in a pleasant climate. The remaining nine per cent listed an assortment of reasons, ranging from "moved here with a corporation" to "Nevada had never admitted a Negro to practice." Although we did not attempt to verify when the first Negro was admitted to practice in Nevada, the respondent's statement does raise a point. Of the 324 responses to our questionnaire, one respondent stated he was a Negro and five respondents stated they were women — 28,000 Negroes and 241,000 women reside in Nevada. The reader will find a more complete summary of our questionnaire in the Appendix to this Report. 3. Evolution of the University of Nevada System. As people establish stable communities, they begin to consider the future of the society they are creating. It becomes apparent that, if a society is to survive and prosper, it must equip its citizens, certainly its most able citizens, with knowledge and skills. In 1864, the plan of the Morrill Act was incorporated into Nevada's Constitution by those early Nevadans seizing an opportunity to provide for the future of their State. In certain respects, this early interest in education (in a territory dotted with mining camps) is curious, but it does demonstrate an early commitment to enrich Nevada's future. This commitment was the seed, planted more than 100 years ago, from which the University of Nevada System has grown. Incorporating the Morrill Act (which gave states land to sell and, thereby, finance higher education) into Nevada's Constitution did not produce instant results. Nevada's Legislature could not agree on the location for the first institution, and Nevada's population apparently did not exert much pressure for the establishment of a university. In 1873, however, the Legislature did authorize the establishment of the University Preparatory School. At the urging of Governor Bradley, who was a resident of Elko, the Preparatory School was initially established in Elko, Nevada. Elko was a small community of about 1,000 people and was situated a substantial distance from Nevada's population center. The Elko institution survived for eleven years but did not attain significant success. Enrollment at the University Preparatory School never exceeded 35 students, and it became increasingly apparent that Elko was not, at that time, an appropriate location. In 1886, Nevada's Legislature moved the Preparatory School from Elko to Reno. It is interesting and significant to note that, even with the assistance of "private money" used to erect a building for the Preparatory School in Elko, it did not survive in its sparsely-populated area; hut, in 1969, its population having increased, Elko became the site of Nevada's first Community College. Once moved from Elko to Reno, the University Preparatory School was reorganized and, in 1887, college level courses were first offered. The newly-reorganized University grew, added educational programs and, today, meets the needs of approximately 7,000 students. Although headcount enrollment at the University of Nevada, Reno, decreased slightly between the Fall Semester of 1972 and the Fall Semester of 1973, we feel it is a stable institution that will continue to contribute to the quality of life in Nevada. As the University of Nevada, Reno, expanded, its capacity, along with the population growth of its geographic area, Clark County also began to experience an influx of people and an increase in its natural population. Growth in Clark County was at first slow, and perhaps its impact on Nevada was not immediately realized. In 1920, for example, Clark County contained only 4,854 people compared to Washoe's 18,622 (Washoe County, Carson City and Douglas County, combined, had a population of 22,905). By 1930, Clark County had only increased to 8,532, while Washoe County, alone, had grown to a population of27,158. Clark County's growth, however, gained momentum and, by 1950, it was the home of more than 48,000 people, which comprised 30 per cent of Nevada's population. Once again, it became necessary to bring educational opportunities to Nevadans and. in 1951, what is now the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, was established as an extension center. In 1955, the extension center became a Southern Regional Division and opened the first building on its present site in 1957. In 1965, the Division became a University and, in 1969, when more than one-half of Nevada's population resided in Clark County, it became the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Today, this Report considers establishing a Center for Legal Education at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and certain characteristics of this University become relevant. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas, has experienced extra-ordinary growth in terms of student enrollment, size and quality of faculty and physical facilities. This expansion has occurred so rapidly and smoothly that even many members of the Las Vegas community have not yet realized that a highly-developed University now exists in Clark County. Perhaps some specific data will help illustrate the development of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, over the last five years. Student enrollment, measured on a headcount basis, has increased from 3,900 to approximately 6,500. Between the Fall of 1972 and the Fall of 1973, enrollment increased by 11.8 per cent. Enrollment at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, is overwhelmingly composed of Nevada residents, with only ten per cent coming from out of state, and these students are educated by 250 full-time faculty, as opposed to 87 five years ago. This increase in the university community has required expanded facilities and, in the last five years, classroom and office space has tripled. A second and very important point should be noted when considering the growth of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. This point concerns the maintenance of quality. While quality is a difficult concept to quantify, the University has expanded the scope and increased the depth of its programs. In 1963, the Southern Regional Division at Las Vegas was first given its degreegranting status. By 1973, there were 63 degree-granting programs. The orderly and rational expansion of these programs is the result of planning, and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, has, in fact, demonstrated a willingness and ability to analyze its structure and prepare for its future. The flexibility of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, was perhaps most clearly demonstrated in March of 1971 when the faculty approved the Final Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Developing University. This action not only committed the University to specific goals, such as "an orderly and rational development of new programs for this campus," it also created new colleges to meet identified needs and combined other colleges that could best function as a single unit. This Report, thus, initiated a major restructuring of the University, which has since been completed, but it does not preclude similar self-analysis in the future. CHAPTER II. IS THERE A NEED FOR A NEVADA LAW SCHOOL? 1. Is there a need from the standpoint of Nevada students? To gain the proper perspective on law school enrollment prospects for young Nevadans, it is necessary, first, to look at the national picture as respects law school enrollments. Although the national facts are relatively well-known, they need to be restated here. (a) The national picture on numbers of law applicants and first-year places. There has been, over the past 14 years, an astonishing and massive increase in the numbers taking the Law Schflol Admission Test, the numbers appl3dng for admission to law school, the numbers of students being admitted to law school and the numbers of applicants being denied admission to any law school. The information supplied by the Educational Testing Service of Princeton, New Jersey, and the American Bar Association, reflected in the charts published in the Appendix to this Study, fully documents these statements. A few comparisons will dramatize the trend. In 1960 some 17,000 first-year law students were enrolled in ABA-approved schools. That year, when many law schools did not require the LSAT, only 23,800 test papers were graded. By 1970, the number of first-year law students had more than doubled from the 17,000 in 1960 to reach some 37,538. By 1970, when virtually all law schools required an LSAT score, some 107,000 Law School Admission Test papers were graded. Forecasts for the future made by Professor Vaughn Ball, now at the University of Georgia School of Law, Consultant to the Law School Admission Test Council and the acknowledged expert with respect to prospective numbers of LSAT administrations and first-year law school enrollments, have been extended to the year 1978-79. Professor Ball predicts that, for 1978-79, there will be 214,000 LSAT papers graded, with some 48,000 first-year law school students actually enrolled. His projections, in the past, have proved remarkably accurate. Accordingly, his projections to 1978-79 are entitled to weight. To evaluate the significance of these figures, one must take account of the fact that many law school applicants take the Law School Admission Test two or more times. The number of LSAT papers graded, thus, do not reflect an equivalent number of individual persons. A much more reliable index with respect to the number of individual applicants who are seriously interested in law school is to be found by reference to the number of persons who register with the Law School Data Assembly Service (a service remitting undergraduate records, LSAT scores and a combined "Index" number for each applicant operated for the benefit of the law schools by ETS) which began its operation in the year 1971-72. In 1971, roughly 100,000 individuals registered with the LSDAS. The projection for LSDAS registrants in the application year of 1973-74 was 110,000. Actually, of those who register with the LSDAS, not all follow through and supply all the required data for utilization of the service of LSDAS. (In some instances, of course, the failure to submit completely the required material may be chargeable to college registrar offices rather than to slothfulness on the part of the candidate.) We simply do not have available really accurate information on the number of individuals who actually completed applications for admission to all of the law schools of the country. On the basis of the information above described for 1971-72, however. Professor Walter B. Raushenbush of the University of Wisconsin Law School and Chairman of the Pre-Law Committee of the Law School Admission Test Council, observed, in his recent article, "The Unmet Demand for Legal Education," that in 1971-72, the application year in which 35,131 got first-year seats in ABAapproved law schools, we know there were about 100,000 individuals interested in attending law school, because that many registered with the Law School Data Assembly Service (the centralized transcript analysis service which applicants to most law schools must use). However, the best information suggests that only about 80,000 of these became serious law school applicants; the others changed their minds or their plans, in many cases because of a discouragingly low LSAT score. Of the 80,000, or so, some were, doubtless, inadequately qualified. Others were accepted to some law schools but chose not to enroll. But, my own belief is that between 15,000 and 25,000 reasonably well-qualified applicants wanted to go to law school and were not accepted by a single school to which they applied." For the cuwent academic year, 1974-75, it is estimated that there will be enrolled in ABA-approved law schools, nearly 40,000 first-year law students. More than three times that number, or about 130,000 Law School Admission Test papers were graded in anticipation of filing application for admission to law school; in 1973-74 an estimated 110,000 actually registered with the Law School Data Assembly Service to facilitate supplyii^ law schools with their admission credentials. With most State University Law Schools and strong private law schools receiving 10 to 15 applications for every position in the first-year class, one can adjust Professor regarding the 1971-72 data and conclude that, together with the 40,000 to be admitted as the first-year entering law students for the Fall of 1974 there are at least 20,000 to 25,000 additional applicants this year whose very good undergraduate academic records and whose very creditable scores on the Law School J convincing fashion, that they were highly-qualified to undertake law study. But the capacity of the approved law schools of this country to receive first-year law students is absolutely exhausted. There are, in fact, virtually no empty seats in any of the approved law schools. As stated in the ABA Section of Legal Education's 1973 Review of Legal Education: "This year (1973), no school reported any 'unfilled seats' for first-year students." What is the explanation for the relatively enormous increase over a 14-year period in the number of young people interested in studying law? What are the factors that have combined to escalate so greatly the numbers of those taking the LSAT, registering with LSDAS and filing applications for admission to law school? It may not be possible to catalogue all of the significant forces at work, but certainly the major factors can be identified. First of all, there is the simple matter of population growth. There is an apparent continuing relationship between the number of 22-year-olds in a population and numbers enrolled as first-year law students. In 1960, when first-year law school student enrollment was at about the 17,000 mark, there were, in the United States that year, 2,158,805 persons 22 years of age. In 1970, when there were 37,538 first-year law students enrolled in approved schools, there were, in the country, some 3,441,099 young persons aged 22. Though population growth does not explain all of the increase in numbers, it is plainly a significant factor. There are other factors, as well. Thus, whereas, in the mid-60s, there were only a few hundred minority group law students (Blacks, American Indians, Chicanos, Puerto Ricans and other minorities), by 1969, the figure had reached 2500 and, in 1973- 74, the figure had climbed to 7,601. Another significant factor is the very substantial increase in the number of women law students. In 1963, there were just 1,883 women enrolled in all the approved law schools of the United States. By 1973, that number had increased to 16,760. The factors thus far mentioned — growth of the population of young people, new interest in law study on the part of new population groups (minority groups and women) — can be quantified and recognized as the appreciable factors in the very great increase in the number of applicants to law schools. There is, in addition, the factor of a relative slowdown, for a time, in placement in such other professional fields as teaching, engineering, physics, etc., while placement of law graduates, for the most part, has continued to be relatively strong. There is the additional factor that the era of dissatisfaction with the organization of society in a number of quarters produced initially the abortive period of campus unrest, which was accompanied by and seems to be followed by a great surge of interest on the part of young people in effecting societal change through "the system," i.e., the law. Accordingly, some are inclined to think, to some extent at least, that the present surge of applications for admission to law school reflects the reformer's zeal of some young people and their hope that the law will turn out to be a channel for societal reformation — a zeal which may cool. Some quantitative support is available with respect to an increase of interest on the part of young people in pursuing careers in the legal profession. Since 1966, the American (Council on Education, through its office of research, has administered, to a very large number of college freshmen in hundreds of institutions of higher learning, an extensive questionnaire, which, among other things, elicits information concerning the career objectives of the responding freshmen. For the year 1966-1967, the ACE survey indicated that, among college males in their first year, 5.9 per cent intended to pursue a career in the legal profession, whereas, only .4 per cent of women students shared this interest. Most recent results of the ACE research program cover first-year students entering in the Fall of 1973. For that entering class, the number of male, first-year students interested in pursuing the legal profession was 6.7 per cent, while the number of women, first-year students interested in becoming lawyers had risen, by 1973, to 2.5 per cent — a mo^t dramatic change in career aspirations as respects law study on the part of women. A1973 research project, conducted under the auspices of the Educational Testing Service sponsored by the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Graduate Record Examinations Board and the Law School Admission Council, entitled "The Graduates," reported that college seniors intending to pursue law study represented 7.1 per cent of male graduates but only 1.2 per cent of women graduates for the year 1971. A relatively recent Gallup poll of College sophomores, juniors and seniors, published on April 25,1974, reported that 10 per cent of those queried intended, or were interested in, pursuing careers in the legal profession. One of the difficulties encountered in trying to project future numbers of applicants for law schools, on the basis of surveys of expressed interest, grows out of the fact that inquiries are made at different times, in different terms and in different settings, with somewhat discordant results. One may fairly compare the number of bachelor's degrees granted in 1973 (941,000) with the numbers of LSAT administrations (122,000), the numbers registering with the LSDAS (100,765) and the number of admitted and enrolled firstyear law students for 1974 (40,000 est.). Nearly 11 per cent of the number of bachelor's degrees for 1972-73 subsequently registered with the LSDAS agency seeking law school admission for the year 1973-74. This factor of 11 per cent is close to the Gallup poll figure. It is substantially higher than the expressed interest reflected in either the ACE surveys of entering freshmen in undergraduate institutions or the figure developed in the study of 1971 undergraduate senior career interests reflected in "The Graduates," a study conducted by ETS. If a conclusion of significance emerges from this welter of figures, it is that apparently there are persons now applying to law school who get the "call" late and who, indeed, may well be "floaters" in the sense that their eventual choice of career may be heavily influenced by the opportunity or lack of it in other fields. Accordingly, a slowdown in placement of law graduates, which some fear, and improving opportunities in other fields, already taking place, for example, in engineering, might indicate some relative reduction in the number of those interested in pursuing law study. But it must be emphasized that there could even by a substantial reduction in the overall nurnbers of young people interested in pursuing law study, but the reduced figure would still assuredly continue to provide a substantial excess of truly qualified applicants for law schools. Finally, in the immediate five-year period ahead, the projections of those expert in the field are for continued absolute increases in the number of persons seriously interested in pursuing law as a career — with continued acute shortage of law study opportunities. Whatever the appraisal, it is clear that a number of factors have combined to bring to the law schools unprecedented numbers of very highly-qualified applicants, and the factors at work notably population growth and increased awareness on the part of women and minority groups, seem to make it clear that very substantial numbers of applicants will seek a legal education for many years to come. This is another way of stating that, short of some unlikely, dramatic expansion in the number and size of law schools, the position of the law school applicant on the national front is going to be a situation of limited opportunity and excessive demand for many years ahead. There will be two or three times as many applicants as all the approved law schools can enroll and strong State University Law Schools will continue to have eight or ten applicants for each place in the first-year class. What does this mean for the young Nevadan seriously interested in going to law school? (b) The law school admission prospect for young Nevadans. How did the young Nevadans who did, in fact, take the LSAT and register with LSDAS in the period 1972-73 fare as respects admission to law school? On the basis of a special study made by ETS (reprinted in the Appendix), an estimated 160 young people took the LSAT and registered with LSDAS. They filed some 968 applications for admission to Law School — or, an average of slightly more than five separate applications per individual student. The 968 applications for admission produced just 91 acceptances, with a number, of course, being accepted by more than one law school. The law schools were asked to report back to ETS as respects actual enrollment of individual applicants. Although the reporting law schools list only 32 young Nevadans as enrolled as first-year law students in the Fall of 1973, that figure is believed to be very substantially below the true figure. Allowing for substantial slippage, i.e., non-reporting by some law schools with respect to actual enrollment of young Nevadans as first-year law students, it is more likely that 50-60 young Nevadans were actually enrolled as first-year law students in the Fall of 1973 in approved law schools of the United States. Even those figures, however, are substantially below the national norm. In 1970, the first-year law school enrollment, country-wide, of 37,538 students amounted to 1.1 per cent of the country's 22-year-old populatio^n. In light of the fact that Nevada, in 1972-73, had approximately 9,000 22-year-olds, that population base should have resulted in 90 to 100 Nevadans enrolled as first-year law students in law schools somewhere in the United States. Two or three times that number should have sought law school enrollment. One fact emerges strongly. That fact is that fewer young Nevadans are trying to study law and fewer young Nevadans are securing admission to, and actually enrolling in, law school than one would expect, if the experience nationally is applied to Nevada's population. What factors explain the relatively low level of interest in law study on the part of Nevada's young people and the very low enrollment rate even on the part of those who try to secure admission to law school? A number of factors probably are responsible. First of all, with no law school to be visibly noticed in the State of Nevada and no law students to serve as examples, many young people who might otherwise be stiumlated into thinking about law as a possible career simply do not give it serious consideration. Their lack of interest may well be fortified by a second consideration, and that is simply the cost of going out of state to law school. The prospective law student from Nevada faces the prospect of paying either high tuition at a private law school or high tuition prescribed for non-residents in State University Law Schools. In California, for example, to which the largest number of young Nevadans do, in fact, go for law study, tuition ranged, in 1973-74, fi-om a low of $1,500 per academic year to a high of $3,184 (at Stanford University Law School), with the Law Schools of the University of California system charging about $2,200 tuition for non-resident students. The total cost of $4,000 to $7,000 a year for out-of-state study (including maintenance) can be an impossible barrier. This is especially true of a recent graduate who may have incurred a substantial debt to complete his undergraduate education. A poignant vignette is reported in a summary of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 1973 Law School Questionnaire results; "A 1971 respondent with a 3.64 GPA was admitted to UC (Davis), to UCLA and to UC (Berkeley-Boalt). For economic and family reasons, he was unable to leave town and, at last report, was working as a journeyman grade PR man at a local hotel." A fragmentary survey in 1973, with 130 students (and two faculty) responding, found 89 answering that they were interested in attending law school and would attend one in Nevada. But 74, or nearly 60 per cent, said that they would not be able to go out of state to attend law school. This problem of high cost to the student is not peculiar to Nevada. A study for the University of Massachusetts just a few years ago concluded that "Our survey of the existing Massachusetts Law Schools indicates that every year perhaps 300 to 500 students who are actually admitted (to Law Schools in the State) do not come because financial aid is unavailable or insufficient. This, of course, says nothing of those who do not apply at all because tuition approaching or exceeding $2,000 appears too formidable." Another discouraging factor is the active discrimination now being practiced against non-resident applicants by most publicly-financed law schools. Restrictive quotas for non-residents range firom 0 to 10 per cent to a modest 20 or 25 per cent. At the annual national meeting of a Law School Admission Test Council in June, 1974, an informal poll of law schools present indicated that only 9 or 10 publicly-supported law schools did not restrict admission of non-residents by imposition of quotas, but 33 publicly-financed law schools did, in fact, enforce restrictive quotas against nonresidents, with a 15 per cent quota as perhaps the mean. In concrete terms, this means that a young Nevadan with precisely the same entrance credentials as a residential applicant will be passed over in favor of the resident applicant. Because discrimination against non-resident applicants is now widespread, the effect is to channel more of the non-resident applications to privately-financed law schools which, of course, makes the task of winning acceptance for admission on the part of the young Nevadan ever more difficult at the privately-financed law school through sheer force of increased numbers. The knowledge that young Nevadans of ability and strong credentials are either not securing admission to law school or cannot afford the cost of out-of-state legal education, has a chilling effect on young people who might otherwise be interested in pursuing law study. It is simply a fact of life that a young Nevadan is not as likely to be motivated to pursue a career in the legal profession as a person in states providing legal education opportunity. For those young Nevadans who do aspire to study law, a relatively smaller number will succeed in securing admission to law school than one would fairly expect on the basis of their credentials and the national experience. It cannot fairly be said ffiat Nevadans lose out because they are less bright than young people in other states. The ETS study reporting on the LSAT experience of Nevadans indicates It i/t^a ^ good sample, a very fair sample, of the young people in the Nanon, wth LSAT scores for Nevadans typical of the country as a whole. In terms of their ability level, they ought to win acceptance to law school at the same rate as young people generally. Their lesser rate of success reflects, not against them, but the circumstance that they are facing unprecedented competition for admission and barriers now erected by other States. Sad words, indeed, are the words, "what might have been." To have young people of ability and character in Nevada excluded in substantial numbers for the lack of an opportunity for law study within their own State means a genuine loss to them and to society. That loss is visited on young people from every economic level but, especially, on the less affluent and disadvantaged. Of course, one cannot fairly expect a small State to provide every professional course and every other advanced educational opportunity for all segments of its population. The factors to be taken into account in deciding what advanced educational opportunities should be provided include the numbers of desirous and qualified students, the financial capabilities of the State and the question of the need for additional members of the particular calling. 2. Employment prospects for law graduates in the 1970s and 1980s. (a) The national prospect. On the question whether there are decent employment prospects ahead for the young people now filling the Nation's law schools there are, not too surprisingly, two schools of thought. The first is a pessimistic view. Those who doubt the capacity of the country's economy to absorb the burgeoning number of law graduates now arriving on the scene point to a number of facts. In the Fall of 1973, enrollment in American Bar Association-approved law schools totaled 106,102 law students. This compares with the circumstance that, for the year 1970, the American Bar Foundation's 1971 Lawyers' Statistical Report indicated that there were a total of just 855,242 lawyers in the whole United States. Though that number has been supplemented by graduates of the past four years, it is sobering, at least to some, to contemplate that we now have one law student in school for every three or four members of the practicing profession. Furthermore, 1973 saw the awarding of 27,756 professional degrees in law and, that same year, 30,075 persons were admitted to the practicing Bar. (The circumstance that many law graduates over a period of years take the Bar examination in more than one state accounts for the circumstance that more are admitted each year than, in fact, graduate.) Whether the economy can absorb 30,000 newly-admitted lawyers in 1973 and 1974 is a troublesome question. In commenting on this state of affairs, even one of the optimists, as respects utilization of lawyers in our society, Mr. Chesterfield Smith, President of the American Bar Association, said, "I seriously doubt that all these lawyers can be gainfully employed in the law under the present system." (That leaves open, of course, the possibility of some changes in the system that would open new opportunities for law-trained persons.) The pessimistic view as respects placement of current law graduates has been expounded publicly in a number of quarters. In August of 1972, speaking before the National Conference of Bar Presidents, Dean Robert Boden of the Marquette University Law School referred to the increasing numbers of law graduates as a "threat to the Bar and to the public in a vast oversupply of lawyers." He appealed to Bar Presidents to discourage creation of new law schools where there is no demonsteable need or where the effect is to siphon off money that ought to be used for qualitative growth in existing schools, or where existing schools can be more cheaply expanded. (Plainly, Dean Boden was not addressing himself to the problem of creation of a law school in a state without any existing law school.) More recently, in the «7ournal of Legal Education, York and Hale, in their article. Too Many Lawyers?,' concluded "The demand for lawyers is growing, but it hardly seems possible that it can expand at a rapid enough rate in the next few years to absorb the already incipient supply. To absorb the rising tide, there would have to be a restructuring of the profession to meet the needs of those who are not now adequately served. In the near future, it seems unlikely that society will so change its priorities V. 1 f J ^ adequately compensated for meeting these needs. Hence, up to half of the^aduates in the near future may have to seek employment in fields where, traditionally, their legal training is not a prerequisite." Even the 1972 ABA Task Force Report on Utilization of Law-Trained Personnel sounded a note of concern in its observation that "The American Bar Association, as well as state and local bar associations and law schools, should inform the public that there may not be sufficient positions in the near term, in some traditional fields of legal practice or in some geographic areas, for all those who may seek such positions and further investigate and publicize the developing areas in traditional practice and otherwise which offer new opportunities." There is, however, another view of the placement prospects for law graduates in the decade ahead. The U. S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook for 1974-75, with respect to the employment prospects for law-trained personnel, commented as follows: "A rapid increase in the number of law school graduates seeking employment is expected to create keen competition for the available jobs. Graduates of wellknown law schools and those who rank high in their class should find salaried positions with law firms, on the legal staffs of corporations and government agencies and as law clerks for judges. Graduates of less-prominent schools and those with lower scholastic ratings may experience some difficulty in finding salaried jobs. However, many will find opportunities in fields where legal training is an asset, but not normally a requirement. "The employment of lawyers is expected to grow moderately through the mid1980s, as increased business activity and population create a demand for attorneys to deal with a growing number of legal questions. Supreme Court decisions extending the right to counsel for persons accused of lesser crimes, the growth of legal action in areas of consumer protection, the environment, safety and an expected increase in the use of legal services by middle-income groups through pre-paid legal service programs also should provide employment opportunities. Other jobs will be created by the need to replace lawyers who retire or leave the occupation for other reasons." In his recent statement, Mr. Chesterfield Smith, President of the American Bar Association, put it into a sentence when he said, "But I do believe that, if we change the system (for utilizing legal services) so that people who need a lawyer Can afford to hire him, then we can use even more lawyers." While the advent of no-fault insurance compensation plans for automobile accident claims and no-fault divorce measures may well reduce the need for legal services in the affected fields, it is surely clear that there is a great and unmet need for legal services on the part of the great majority of our population. Most persons with middle-class incomes, and surely most of those with less than middle-class incomes, simply live without benefitting firom the advice and counsel to be supplied by a welltrained lawyer. There is, accordingly, a great need for the expansion of the availability of legal services and promising experiments in the form of group legal services, somewhat on the pattern of Blue Cross/Blue Shield, are even now underway with the active support of the American Bar Association. It is this sense of optimism about the prospective enlargement in the demand for legal services that prompted the 1972 ABA Task Force to conclude that "There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that there are now, or are likely to be in the foreseeable future, more legally-trained men and women than can be satisfactorily and productively employed." In terms of actual experience in placement of law graduates in 1973 and 1974, there is simply not adequate hard factual information. Conversations with placement officers from law schools in different sections of the United States fortify the impression that placement of law graduates has slowed a hit, but that the market is still relatively strong. In those sections of the country which continue to enjoy significant population growth, placement seems to go well. In those sections of the country where there are concentrated a considerable number of law schools, as along the Eastern Coast and in California, the general impression is that some law graduates are waiting longer than they would like to secure law-related employment. But, the state of the market demand for law graduates in one particular year is not really very helpful on the question whether additional opportunities for law study should be created. Any assessment of societal needs for law-trained people in the dark years of the depression of the 19308 would have yielded a convincing negative response, hut the graduates of the 1930s are now the leaders of the legal profession and they have enjoyed substantial rewards for their service to society. Basically, one comes down to a choice between a conservative, somewhat pessimistic, view of society's ability to engage the services of law graduates, or an optimistic, expanded view of the assignments to be put before the profession and the development of new modes for financing provision of legal services for much larger segments of society. In 1970, the Russell Sage Foundation Study, Human Resources in Higher Education, commented that "In summary, the demand for persons with legal training is likely to be sufficient to absorb all the graduates that law schools can produce. Student demand for legal education will be at least as great and perhaps considerably greater than the capacity of law schools to accommodate the applicants. In the past, law students have been a heterogeneous group, and law schools have admitted students representing a wide spectrum of abilities; it seems likely that these variable admission standards will continue. Some of the schools may become more selective, but there will still he relatively unselective schools, and they will probably experience the most rapid ^owth rates. The task of the legal profession is twofold; first, to improve the quality of the poor schools that still remain, and, second, to expand the number of opportunities for legal education at a faster rate in the next decade. Unless both quantity and quality of legal education can be increased, there will be unmet student demand for legal education and unmet societal demand for legal services." One of the eloquent testimonials to the real dimensions of the virtually unassessable need for legal services in our society was offered by Dean Phil Neal of the University of Chicago Law School when, in answer to his own question, he stated. Are we on the verge of having too many lawyers for the good of society?," he continued. Abundant needs and opportunities for the wise use of lawyers' talents confront us. There is scarecely an area of social concern in which, could we afford them, an infusion of legal resources might not make a difference. The most conspicuous present example is the criminal justice system, that aspect of law which touches the most elemental of social needs and the most acute of human plights. What would it do for the performance of those institutions if every major police department had a skilled legal staff, if corrections administrators had lawyers at their elbows, if our prosecutors' offices could deal with cases rather than with numbers, if we had public-defender establishments equivalent in resources and efficiency to large private law offices? How shall we manage the new burdens of criminal defense that are sooner or later — and, probably, very soon — to be imposed by a constitutional rule requiring counsel for indigents in misdemeanor cases? And what of the next development after that, which seems likely to make the right to counsel even in civil cases an expanding benefit in our society?" The same viewpoint is expressed by Packer and Erhlich in their study for the Carnegie Corporation, "New Directions in Legal Education" (1972) (at page 68) where they observe that, "There is far more law being generated today than in a less complex world. A nation of 200,000,000 people who litigate more and are subject to much more governmental regulation, who have many more governing agencies and more tribunals bent on printing everything, and who have more legislatures that are not hesitant to legislate, all combine to produce a society that is very heavily dependent on lawyers." The Legal profession has never been fully appreciated, nor is it likely to be, as half the litigants in the United States must be losers. It is, therefore, a popular pastime to complain about our lawyer-ridden way of life. In this country, we do have the world's highest ratio of lawyers to population. That happens to accompany a rate of economic productivity that surpasses all other nations. In this connection, it may he noted that, despite the considerable increase in the number of lawyers in relationship to the population, the ratio of lawyers to Gross National Product actually declined as the GNP increased at an even faster rate. Whereas, in 1950, we had 551 lawyers per $1,000,000,000 of GNP, in 1970, we had just 400 lawyers per $1,000,000,000, and projections for 1980 range from a low of 381 to a high of 411 (the latter assuming a sharp increase in the number of law students). The significance of this data on the question of the probable dimension of the effective demand for legal services in the future is not clear. At the very least, however, the declining numbers of lawyers in relation to the burgeoning Gross National Product demonstrates that our society is not lawyer-burdened or that, if it is, the burden will lighten. Increased numbers of lawyers can he carried even more easily than the number today. No one can say, with positive assurance, that, across the country, the enlarged number of law graduates will assuredly find quick employment in law-related assignments. Nevertheless, if one looks to the past, one does see a great growth in the number of lawyers in our society and a demonstrated ability of our society in the past to ^bsorh additional law-trained personnel. In 1951, we had one lawyer for every 696 persons in the population. By 1970, nearly twenty years later, we had one lawyer for every 572 persons in the population, and the demand for law graduates was very strong, indeed. On the subject of the placement prospects for law graduates nationally, then, one may take either the pessimistic or the optimistic view. It perhaps ought to be added, however, in a society which seems bent on more complexity, more regulation, more technological specialization of function and proliferation of varieties of economic activity and property ownership, that a legal education always improves the law graduate's prospects, not only for the traditional legal roles but for many others, as well. In a sense, law is the last frontier of generalist education, available to those who have not made a final career choice until the close of their undergraduate program. It is, moreover, professional education aimed at developing the skills of analysis and reasoned expression so heavily in demand for so many of the assignments in our complex society. The writers of this Study, though recognizing that the output of law graduates may, at times, outstrip the opportunities in conventional law-related employments, nevertheless, share the view of the Task Force of the American Bar Association that there is not now, nor is it likely that there will he in the future, a genuine oversupply in our society of persons trained with the skills which come from absorption of a sound and demanding education in the processes of the law. (b) The placement prospects for new Nevada law graduates in the years ahead. As it is difficult to forecast with any assurance the nature of the job market for law graduates across the country in the years that lie ahead, it will not he surprising that ambivalence will he the keynote of observations offered with respect to the placement opportunities for law graduates in Nevada. The situation, moreover, is complicated by the fact that the Nevada economy is not a cross-section of the national economy — by any matter of means. Though agriculture, mining and some industrial activity are factors in the Nevada economy, the fact is that, to a considerable extent, the State has hitched its economic wagon to the recreational, or tourism, star. The nature of the Nevada economy is, to some extent, reflected in the situation of the Nevada Bar, as described in the 1971 Lawyer's Statistical Report of the American Bar Foundation. In 1970, for the total United States, the lawyer-population ratio was one lawyer for every 572 persons in the general population. That same year, in Nevada, the State counted 773 lawyers, which number, divided into the State population, 3delded a ratio of one lawyer for every 633 persons — appreciably but not drastically lower than the national average. But, a lawyer-population ratio cast in terms of averages is misleading. In fact, of the 739 lawyers listed in the state directory,-some 617, in 1970, were found in the two cities of Reno and Las Vegas. Consequently, the lawyer-population ratio in the cities reflects the much heavier concentration of lawyers there. By the same token, the lawyer-population ratio in the outlying counties reflects a dramatically reduced number of attorneys in the smaller communities. The principal categories for lawyer placement for Nevada in 1970, when a total of 739 lawyers were counted, consisted of private practice (583) Government service (139, including the executive and legislative branches, as well as Judicial) and just 32 employed by private corporations. The future needs of the conventional legal profession in Nevada are directly related to the growth of the population. The experience of the past has been one of very rapid population growth, accompanied by a very significant expansion in the size of the legal profession serving Nevada. The population forecasts for the years ahead all agree that Nevada will continue to he a high growth State, as respects population. Although there are differences in the projections, a middle forecast (supported by the data to he found in the Appendix herein) will see Nevada with a population of 770,000 in 1980, 1,082,000 in 1990 and 1,379,000 by the year 2000. The experience of the immediate past suggests that the need for legal services in Nevada v/ill support placement of substantial numbers of new lawyers each year. There is, moreover, a kind of geometric factor that operates as an urban population increases in size. On the longer haul, the number of direct lawrelated employment positions will hinge in Nevada, as it will in the rest of the country, on development of new methods for providing legal services for very much larger segments of society. It is impossible to state with mathematical precision the number of lawyers that can obtain suitable employment in Nevada within the foreseeable future. Any attempt to conceal this fact behind the authority of a statistic would be deceptive. We will, therefore, briefly state factors that increase the demand for legal services and relate them to circumstances in Nevada. Demand for legal services in Nevada will grow in direct relation to population and economic activity in the State. As has been discussed, Nevada's population has greatly increased in number and the trend is expected to continue. In addition, Nevada's economy is healthy and economic activity is expected to increase. An urbanized society draws heavily upon those with a legal education. Nevada is a highly urbanized State and is expected to become increasingly urbanized. Naturally, rural areas also require the services of lawyers, and our questionnaire indicates that very few lawyers in Nevada have attempted to realize this potential. Current requirements to sit for the Nevada Bar Examination require that a candidate be a Nevada resident as of March 1st, in the year he intends to he examined. The examination is currently given about the end of July, and this results in a sixmonths' residency requirement. It appears that candidates in Nevada must have some specific employment opportunity in sight or they would not wait at least six months to take the examination, three months to receive their results and then simply hope to find employment. Personal observation indicates that the lawyers in Nevada are actively employed, and our questionnaire indicated that 54 per cent of the respondents earn $25,000 or more annually. If 60 to 80 new lawyers were graduated each year from an accredited and highlyregarded Law School operating within Nevada, it is anticipated that the placement experience for such a school would parallel the experience of other Law Schools in the fast-growing Mountain States Region. In concrete terms, that should mean that the majority of the graduates will find places in the conventional legal profession, although it may well mean that in the future some will be influenced to seek placement in the smaller communities which have gone begging for some time. A certain segment of the graduates, some by choice and some by necessity, will take employment in callings where law is a very useful adjunct, even though it may not be absolutely prerequisite. Illustrations of such latter assignments are the work of trust officers and law enforcement personnel, court administrators and other court officers, in various aspects of insurance company operation (including claims, investigation and adjustment) and in executive posts in the business community. In short, despite some significant differences in the nature of the Nevada economy, it is anticipated that new lawyers in Nevada will encounter about the same placement opportunities as are likely to be encountered in the balance of the country, favored, to some extent, by the fact that the Nevada economy is expected to be an expanding one for the foreseeable future. CHAPTER III. WHAT MIGHT A NEW LAW SCHOOL DO FOR THE STATE BEYOND THE EDUCATION OF LAW STUDENTS? To a State, presently without a Law School, there are benefits to be derived from creation of a Center for Legal Education. Tliese benefits go significantly beyond the function of training people for the legal profession and allied callings. To bring together a group of dedicated law teachers, legal scholars and a research Law Library will provide the State and University with a variety of capabilities. First, there is the matter of giving expert and disinterested attention to improvement of the legal system and its administration in the State of Nevada. 1. The Law Institute function. An assembly of able, dedicated, full-time legal scholars can provide capability for sustained study and evaluation of the working of the legal system in Nevada. There is no substitute for conscious, organized attention to the functioning of the State's legal system and, in the absence of a Law School with a significant research commitment, it is not likely that Nevada will have that type of service in adequate scale. Legal scholars in other states could be engaged on an ad hoc basis to do particular tasks of research as friction develops and attention is required for this or that aspect of the legal system. That is, at best, an inadequate patchw(Jrk substitute for the continuing attention that a collective group of resident legal scholars can provide for Nevada's legal system. In a State with rapid population growth, the law of property, the law of landlord and tenant, the law of real estate finance, the law relating to environmental protection, the law relating to land-use planning (to list only a few of the more obvious areas) are areas of the law which can surely benefit from a law sehool including on its faculty specialists in these fields. Similarly, if the State anticipates significant increase in economic activity in terms of industrial and commercial development, then, the law of corporations, of securities regulation, of commercial transactions and related subject fields will benefit fi-om the attention of legal scholars who have a vital stake in the legal system of Nevada. Is the system of criminal justice and its administration in Nevada satisfactory at present? If so, that would make Nevada unique. The point is that the availability of the expertise found on the faculty of a good University Law School can provide input for improvement of the system of criminal justice and its administration of incalculable benefit to the State. A State can get along, if it must, without the benefit of an expert law faculty's continuing concern with the fairness, efficiency and the adequacy of the legal system of the State. But, a corps of dedicated and able law teachers and legal scholars assembled on the faculty of a good University Law School surely provides the State with a resource of great value. 2. Enriching the University and enlarging its capabilities. A law school of the first rank will bring to the University of which it is a part a distinctive discipline and an art which focuses on translation of policy and judgment, enlightened by information from other disciplines, into functioning regulatory systems. The law, in a sense, is the province of the generalist. It is the lawyer's task to become sufficiently understanding of the relevant information, thus enabling him to serve as judge, arbitrator, advocate, legislator, counselor and advisor. So many of life's problems find their way into one or another of the law's several legal processes — legislative, administrative, judicial, private counseling — that almost no segment of scholarship and learning is foreign to some tie with the law. So it is that a Law School in its Law Library, its community of legal scholars and its restless, energetic and extraordinarily-able young students provides the University with a resource which contributes significantly to the society in which it exists and is intended to serve. There should be some interdisciplinary research involving a contribution of legal scholarship dependent on the inclinations of law faculty and the availability of financial support for such enterprises. There should be participation by law faculty and students in legislative drafting projects where other disciplines of the University may contribute to the policy formulation. There should be, as well, a sensitizing of the University community, by law faculty and law students, to due process of law in University affairs. There may perhaps, in time, be an extension into the University undergraduate program of education in law to enrich the liberal arts. 3. Continuing education for the Practicing Profession. The practicing profession historically has viewed law schools with a considerable amount of skepticism in terms of training its graduates for the actual practice. Nevertheless, the practicing bar has come to recognize that some of the most effective teaching in programs of continuing education for lawyers already in the practice comes from professional teachers, members of law faculties. Continuing education for the profession is increasingly recognized as one of the inescapable obligations to which the profession must respond. The Bar of a particular state needs some agency to assume responsibility in the area of continuing education. A number of law schools undertake to discharge some responsibilities in this area. A state with a small Bar is more likely to turn to a strong law school within the state, if there is one, to help in the task of updating the lawyer's knowledge and skills. "The prospect of recognized specialization in the practicing profession is an imminent development and this, as well, may jlrovide a significant role for the Law School in terms of academic training for specialization and continuing education for maintenance of certification in a specialty. The Supreme Court of Iowa was reported recently in the American Bar Newsletter as having issued an order directing the Bar of that State to formulate a rule to require continuing education for lawy ers as a condition for renewal of their license to practice. There are many who believe that this is the wave of the future. Today, in the field of medicine, in some states and in some specialties, attendance at a given number of programs on continuing education is a condition of continued licensure. The experience of the legal profession has been that voluntary programs of continuing legal education fail to meet the needs of the public adequately through updating of lawyers' skills. Accordingly, some method for more effectively reaching the practicing profession is almost certain to emerge. A law school staffed to make available expert guidance for development of programs in continuing education can be a most valuable asset to the practicing profession and, through the profession, a valuable asset for the larger community. The point is that a law school serves many constituencies. Plainly, and first of all, it serves the interests of law students who wish to pursue legal education. It serves, as well, the interests of the practicing profession and of industry and finance. It serves the needs of society by providing law-trained persons to administer the justice system for all members of society and it serves the University and the total community. A catalog of functions expected to be discharged by the Law School for the State of Hawaii is ambitious but not overly so. Twelve objectives for programs in legal education in Hawaii were projected as appropriate aims. The list included the following: (a) provision of professional education opportunity to the citizens of Hawaii, particularly those of lower-income background; (b) provision of additional legal services, especially to lower-income groups; (c) legal training and legal study of the important problems that are either peculiar to Hawaii or have special character in Hawaii; (d) training for public leadership; (e) provision of an independent source of critical analysis of the work of the court and the legislatures and administrative agencies; (f) training of legal para-professionals; (g) continuing education of the bar; (h) continuing education of the judiciary; (i) addition of legal perspective to the research work of related disciplines at the University of Hawaii; (j) assistance of the legislature, the judiciary and public administration; (k) education of police and other civil authorities concerning the laws they are administering and enforcing, constitutional rights of citizens; (1) education of undergraduates, high school students and the public at large on the workings of a legal system of a democratic society. That, of course, is an ambitious agenda but, in time, a law school given proper financial'support ought to be able to serve most of those stated ends and others, as well. CHAPTER IV. WHAT WOULD A LAW SCHOOL FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS, COST? 1. Direct Financisl Costs. Projecting financial costs for a University Law School in the short run, at least, is appreciably easier than projecting either future law school applications and the even more troublesome business of projecting placement prospects for future law graduates. We have the benefit of the experience of other law schools, including several newly-organized law schools. (a) Operations. One way to approach the task of estimating the costs for operating a law school is to divide the operating budget (including law library costs) by the number of full-time students, giving a figure for the per-student cost of legal education of the particular school. There are, of course, problems in assuring comparability of the financial data to be compared. Moreover, law schools are not customarily required to bear either depreciation of physical plant or any share of the costs of central university administration, i.e., overhead. Despite variations in the data base, however, there are useful figures to be arrived at in terms of per-student cost of legal education. The Hawaiian Law School Study of the Hawaiian Legislative Reference Bureau reported (page 27) that, in 1968, "average 'marginal' law school costs at the University of California at Berkeley and UCLA met out of public funds were estimated at roughly $3,000 per student, 'fixed costs' (for administration, minimum library and other services which must exist regardless of size) an additional $200 to $300 per year..." That figure is for two renowned California law schools, operating in a somewhat perpetually inflated economy. But, the figure was a 1968 figure, now rather distant in time. Currently, the office of the Association of American Law Schools offers an overall national figure of $4000 per student, per year as an appropriate estimate of the per-student cost of legal education in a properly financed law school of excellence. In connection with the Delaware Study of December, 1972, the senior author of the present Study conducted a survey of eight Eastern Law Schools (including prestigous private and publicly-financed law schools). The per-student expenditure, on the basis above described, ranged from a low of approximately $1500 per year to a high of approximately $3600 per year, per student for 1971-72. More recently, the senior author of the present Study, during the course of the last academic year, 1973-74, assembled per-student cost information from eleven publiclysupported Law Schools in the Western United States (excluding California law schools as typically somewhat higher in costs). The schools covered by the survey included the State University Law Schools of Arizona State, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. The reports indicated operating budget expenditures per student (including law library expenditures) ranging from a low of $1400 to a high of $3300. The average figure was $2155, and the median figure was $2312 per student. These are 1973-74 figures. An increment in the magnitude of about 10 per cent would yield a reasonable estimate of per-student costs for legal education in the Mountain States Region for the upcoming academic year of1974-75. Because the smaller law schools cannot enjoy all economies of scale that come with large enrollments, a law school in the student size of 200-250 students is likely to carry an operating budget cost of $3000 to $3500 per student in terms of current dollars for 1974 and subsequent years. This, as will be seen, translates into an annual operating budget of $600,000 to $750,000 in current dollars. It is possible to have a law school on a somewhat lower budget, but it is not possible, in the judgment of those who have been engaged in legal education, to have a first-rate law school on a third-rate budget. In the Appendix, Part VI on Budget Projections, there are somewhat more detailed budgetary projections for the planning year and for the first year of full-scale operation with the first-year class in residence. For later years and with the operation of the full-fledged law school with the three classes in attendance, the per-student operating cost figures detailed above and, of course, adjusted for the factor of inflation, give the best insight into the operational costs to be encountered in developing and administering a first-rate University Law School for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. (b) Capital needs. (1) the Law Building and its equipment; (2) The Law Library. (1) The Law Building. It perhaps should be noted that legal education, to be properly housed, must have a building designed for the function to be served. There must be classrooms designed for discussion-type teaching, with both large and intermediate classrooms. There must be an increasing number of smaller rooms for the small-group discussion seminars that have come to represent the improving development of legal education. There must be provision for a practice court, for large public lectures and sessions of the Student Bar Association, embracing all the students in the school, adequate office space not only for faculty and staff but for the larger number of organizations which characterize an active and dedicated law student body. Finally, for a new law school with no glorious tradition and no distinguished graduates of whom to boast, a striking new Law Building that generates its own spirit of the law can do for the fledgling Law School, in terms of acceptance by the profession and by the larger community, what no other instant accom plishment can match. For a full-function Law School of quality of the sort envisaged for the State of Nevada, a Law Building that would provide 60,000 to 80,000 gross square feet would be in order. In 1967-68, the Arizona Stat« University Law Building of 80,000 gross square feet of striking architectural design, efficient function and a pleasing decor, was built at a cost of about $22 per square foot. The completed building, ready for operation, represented an investment of approximately $2,250,000. To duplicate that building today would be substantially more costly because of inflation. The matter of estimating the costs of building a structure to house the Law School at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, will be left to those on the scene who are expert on such matters. It is appropriate to note, however, that law buildings are not costly 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 process 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 practical terms, this will require an expenditure, in the first years, of $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 cannot be overestimated. A Law Library is costly, and it v/ill 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 stud ent 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 of 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. It is fortunate, indeed, that a substantial private gift in the amount of $300,000 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 the new Law School. As a practical matter, this means that the State Law Library capital contribution can be started and continued at a relatively level amount. Thus, $100,000 a year of State money in current dollars should enable a satisfactory beginning in the development of the Law 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, perstudent 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 poor 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 numW 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 satisfectory, v/ill almost surely prove inadequate in the future. Nothing like the ratios of medical education of 2-1 or worse (or better, depending on one's viewpoint) are contemplated for legal education. We will, undoubtedly, however, move toward the 10- 1 ratio. 1 , CI /-» u 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 expended. A significant item in the total Law School operating budget is, of course, law faculty salaries. The financial projections made here with respect 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 ST A TELA W FACULTY SALARIES FOR 1973-74, SECTION OF LEGAL ED UCA TION, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIA TION REPORTS Director of Law School Dean Law Library Law Faculty (highest) (median) 1 $34,000 $24,500 $32,350 $20,200 2 33,000 20,600 33,675 26,050 3 not available not available 33,500 23,500 4 33,700 22,000 27,000 17,200 5 not available 27,120 32,800 20,000 6 37,500 28,000 29,500 21,000 To be competitive in the Mountain States Region, for the year 1975-76 and thereafter, wll 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 competitive 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. CHAPTER V. CAN NEVADA AFTORD A FIRST-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 490,000 residents its current population, in 1974, is estimated at between 575,000 and 600,000. 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 per-capita 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 expenditures 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 publig 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 modem, 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 comparing 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 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 of1,045,000. 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 of Arizona for the support of the new Arizona State University College of Law would have totaled $2,000,000,000 fi-om 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 of575,000 to 600,000 and total personal income in 1971 of 2.4 bilhon 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 nmctions have been enumerated from time to time in earlier passages of this Report. |mey include provision of more equal 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. TTie question is really how ambitious is the University of Nevada System for the State. Tlie State certainly can continue as it has in the past wdthout 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 Nevadainthe 1970s? 45 CHAPTER VI. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION. From the analysis and data that have preceded this formal recommendation, the nature of the conclusions to be offered have emerged. It is our recommendation that the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, at once begin establishment of a first-rank, fulldimension 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: 1. 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 State of Nevada for the benefit of the latter; . « . i -n ^ n (c) provide law-trained graduates to supply society s needs for the skills of welltrained 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; - , , ^ . j i (d) provide a resource for continuing education of the legal profession and lawrelated 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 discipline enterprises in both research and teaching; , . , , .-i-x- ^ (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 3rielded 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 states 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 106,102 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, mth first-year classes of 150 students each, to receive the increase 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 trora 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." Frorn the standpoint of those who live in states with law schools, it is anomalous t at 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? Part I. 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. I. By-Laws of the Association of American Law Schools, Inc. II. 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 at2-7. 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. Part II. Appendix. 1. Law School Admission Test Program. 2. Law School 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 Opinionlndex, December, 1973. b. ACE, Research Report. The First Year of College: AFollow-up. c. ETS., "The Graduates" (1973), at p. 18, Education Plans of Senior Survey Sample, 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 N ational 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. Part II. 1. Law School Admission Test Program. LEGEND ^ Number of enrolled first year law students • Numberof degrees in law O Z X 1325 - 1300 oooso^or>.ooo^o^.co ^^oo<>o•-^CNco'*^•l^^or^o6c^o.-^CN^o' loi 10*0 ioioj»0i^*o»o^'^'0'0>0'0rs. r>.r>»h>.r>.r>.rvr^ 0«lo>>0^ O^O^iO^ O O O O^O^O^ON^ ^O^OSOSO\0>0^ Source: Educational Testing Service (1973). Part II. 2. Law School Admission Test Council Chart. From the Law School Admission Test Council, Annual Report for 1973 at p. 92, with added data. Year Number of Enrolled First- Number of Law Year Law Students Degrees Conferred Number of LSAT Candidates Number of LSDAS Registrants 1947-48 1948-49 1949-50 1950-51 1951-52 1952-53 1953-54 1954-55 1955-56 1956-57 1957-58 1958-59 1959-60 1960-61 1961-62 1962-63 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 (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 13,942 13,891 13,926 12,158 10,923 8,976 7,937 7,994 8,559 9,153 9,661 9,073 9,252 9,434 9,633 11,249 12,257 13,859 15,522 16,959 17,240 17,586 17,477 22,579 27.756 6,882 7,655 8,037 6,748 6,588 7,557 8,653 10,158 11,755 12,770 14,846 17,374 20,903 23,800 25,878 31,691 37,598 39,503 45,268 47,458 50,793 60,503 77,900 107,147 121,871 122.702 130,000* 153,110 166,550 183,500 196,300 214,040 100,724 100,765 110,000* Part II. 2. (Continued). 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. 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. Part II. 3. Legal Education and Bar Admission Statistics —1963-1973. LEGAL ED UCA TIONAND BAR ADMISSION ST A TISTICS 1963-1973 New Enrollment First LSAT J.D. or LL.B. Admissions Year Total Women Year Candidates Awarded to the Bar 1963 49,552 1,883 20,776 30,528 9,638 10,788 1964 54,265 2,183 22,753 37,598 10,491 12,023 1965 59,744 2,537 24,167 39,406 11,507 13,109 1966 62,556 2,678 24,077 44,905 13,115 14,644 1967 64,406 2,906 24,267 47,110 14,738 16,007 1968 62,779 3,704 23,652 49,756 16,077 17,764 1969 68,386 4,715 29,128 59,050 16,733 19,123 1970 82,499 7,031 34,713 74,092 17,183 17,922 1971 94,468 8,914 36,171 107,479 17,006 20,485 1972 101,707 12,173 35,131 119,694 22,342 25,086 1973 106,102 16,760 37,018 121,262 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 Journal, 6-20-74. Source: ABA Section of Legal Education, 1973 Review of Legal Education. Part II. 4. Projection of law school graduates. High and Low Projections of Law School Graduates Based on Student Demand (A) YearY 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 (B) No. of Male Bachelor's Degree Recipients 178,000 200,000 219,000 230,000 230,000 230,000 236,000 247,000 272,000 290.000 295,000 314,000 361,000 398,000 418,000 422,000 464,000 476,000 499,000 518,000 537,000 557,000 (Ci) No. of FirstYear Law Students YearY 16,697 16,083 16,651 16,667 17,030 17,886 20,012 22,933 25.267 26,100 26,550 28,260 32,490 35,820 37,620 37,980 41,760 42,840 44,910 46,620 48,330 50,130 Low Projection High Projectibn (D^) (E>) (Pi) (C^) m (E2) (F^) CVBxlOO CVBxlOO Projection Per Cent of Projection Per Cent of PerCentof C PerCentof Male B First-Year No. of Male No. of First-Year Bach. Entry No. of Law Law Students First-Year Bach. Entr. Law School 1 Law Students Law School Schl.Grads. Grad. in Law Students Law School Grads. Grad. in YearY YearY+3 YearY+3 YearY YearY YearY+3 YearY+3 9.4% 9,429 56.5% 16,697 9.4% 9,429 56.5% 8.0 8,653 53.8 16,083 8.0 8,653 53.8 7.6 9,261 55.6 16,651 7.6 9,261 55.6 7.2 9,434 56.6 16,667 7.2 9,434 56.6 7.4 9,948 58.4 17,030 7.4 9,948 58.4 7.8 10,828 60.5 17,886 7.8 10,828 60.5 8.5 11.792 58.9 20,012 8.5 11.792 58.9 9.3 13,600 59.3 22,933 9.3 13,600 59.5 9.3 15,000 59.3 25,267 9.3 15,200 60.1 9.0 15,500 59.3 26,100 9.0 15,800 60.7 9.0 15,700 59.3 27,140 9.2 16,600 61.3 9.0 16,800 59.3 29,516 9.4 18,300 61.9 9.0 19,300 59.3 34,650 9.6 21,700 62.5 9.0 21,200 59.3 39,004 9.8 24,600 63.1 9.0 22,300 59.3 41,800 10.0 26,600 63.7 9.0 22,500 59.3 43,044 10.2 27,700 64.3 9.0 24,800 59.3 48,256 10.4 31,300 64.9 9.0 25,400 59.3 50,456 10.6 33,000 65.5 1 9.0 26,600 59.3 53,892 10.8 35,600 66.1 1 9.0 27,600 59.3 56,980 11.0 38,000 66.7 1 9.0 28,700 59.3 60,144 11.2 40,500 67.3 1 9.0 29,700 59.3 63,498 11.4 43,100 67.9 til underscores indicate end of actual numlJers and beginning of projections. (—1 ^ ' ^ ^ A Iwr Underscores show end nf 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. Part II. 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 OCCUPA TIONS 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. Professor-Teacher 10 12 12 5 5 5. Business Executive 10 7 5 7 8 6. Dentist 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. Part II. 5. (Continued). 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 Lawyer 5.9% Females 0.4% ACE, Research Report, The American Freshman, National Norms for Fall, 1973 at pp. 23 and 33. Probable Career Occupation Lawyer Males 6.7% Females 2.5% c. ETS. "The Graduates" (1973), at p. 18, Education Plans of Senior Survey Sample, 1971: BY SEX Plan Men Women Total* Professional study in law Total *84 students did not indicate sex. N % 872 7.1 12,315 N % 107 1.2 8,333 N % 982 4.7 20,732 Part II. 6. Projections of numbers of 22-year-olds in population. PROJECTIONS OF NUMBERS OF 22-YEAR-OLDS IN POPUL A TION1970-2000 1970 1975 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 21, p. 40, Population Estimates and Projections, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Series P-25, No. 470, November 1971). 68 Part II. 7. National: Population-lawyer ratio, 1948-1970. NATIONAL: POPULATION-LA WYERRATIO, 1948-1970* No. of % Change per Interval Year Population Lawyers Ratio Population Lawyers 1948 146,631,000 — — — — 1951 154,360,000 221,605 696 5.3 — 1954 162,417,000 241,514 672 5.2 9.0 1957 171,198,000 262,320 653 5.4 8.6 1960 180,670,000 285,933 632 5.5 9.0 1963 188,531,000 296,069 637 4.4 3.4 1966 196,842,000 316,856 621 4.4 7.0 1970 203,184,773 355,242 572 3.2 12.1 *See Notes 3 and 4 below. Note 1. See text discussion of "Population Groups," "Sex," and "Terminology" on pages 1 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.—YYie 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-Hubbell, 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 number 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. Women 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. Part 11. 8. States: Population-lawyer ratio, 1970. STATES: POPULATION-LAWYER RATIO, 1970* Percentage Popu- RankinCountry Percentage Change No. lation No. of of U.S. of U.S. 1963 •1970 of per Popu­ Law­ Popu­ Law­ Popu­ LawState Population Lawyers Lawyer lation yers lation yers lation yers ALABAMA 3,444,000 3,537 974 21 28 1.70 1.0 -2.08 16.3 ALASKA 302,000 466 648 51 51 .15 .13 11.03 51.3 ARIZONA 1,772,000 2,769 640 33 31 .87 .78 9.52 24.0 ARKANSAS 1,923,000 2,107 913 32 35 .95 .59 -1.64 9.34 CALIFORNIA 19,963,000 34,248 583 1 2 9.82 9.64 5.52 20.53 COLORADO 2,207,000 4,665 473 30 24 1.09 1.31 11.63 16.56 CONNECTICUT 3,032,000 5,583 543 24 19 1.49 1.57 5.46 15.63 DELAWARE 548,000 736 745 47 48 .27 .21 7.03 19.96 DIST. OF COLUMBIA 757,000 16,112 47 41 6 .37 4.54 6.31 11.46 FLORIDA 6,789,00!P 11,510 590 9 11 3.34 3.24 14.21 20.53 GEORGIA 4,590,000 6,140 748 15 16 2.26 1.73 2.04 12.37 HAWAII 770,000 906 850 40 42 .38 .26 7.24 36.65 IDAHO 713,000 848 841 43 43 .35 .24 2.74 10.27 ILLINOIS 11,114,000 22,036 504 5 3 5.47 6.2 3.66 8.49 INDIANA 5,194,000 5,778 899 11 18 2.56 1.63 5.61 10.98 IOWA 2,825,000 4,020 703 25 26 1.39 1.13 2.84 5.51 KANSAS 2,249,000 3,458 650 28 29 1.11 .97 -.04 11.04 KENTUCKY 3,219,000 3,875 831 23 27 1.58 1.09 1.13 9.0 LOUISIANA 3,643,000 5,502 662 20 20 1.79 1.55 1.11 14.03 MAINE 994,000 1,130 880 38 40 .49 .32 1.12 10.78 MARYLAND 3,922,000 7,447 527 18 13 1.93 2.10 8.55 15.2 MASSACHUSETTS 6,689,000 12,905 518 10 8 3.29 3.63 24.26 13.66 MICHIGAN 8,875,000 11,753 755 7 10 4.37 3.31 5.98 14.98 MINNESOTA 3,805,000 5,844 651 19 17 1.87 1.64 6.4 12.64 MISSISSIPPI 2,217,000 2,766 802 29 32 1.09 .78 -4.73 10.41 MISSOURI 4,677,000 7,962 587 13 12 2.3 2.24 3.75 3.51 MONTANA 694,000 1,072 647 44 41 .34 .3 -1.14 10.51 NEBRASKA 1,484,000 2,679 554 35 33 .73 .75 3.85 6.09 NEVADA 489,000 773 633 48 47 .24 .22 7.71 27.13 NEW HAMPSHIRE 738,000 823 897 42 45 .36 .23 8.37 17.57 NEW JERSEY 7,168,000 11,999 579 8 9 3.53 3.38 3.91 14.29 NEW MEXICO 1,016,000 1,319 770 37 39 .50 .37 5.87 14.49 NEW YORK 18,191,000 55,946 325 2 1 8.95 15.75 .37 7.18 NORTH CAROLINA 5,082,000 4,638 1,095 12 25 2.5 1.31 1.64 8.38 NORTH DAKOTA 618,000 809 764 46 46 .30 .23 4.92 8.59 OHIO 10,652,000 17,001 627 6 5 5.24 4.79 3.37 8.25 OKLAHOMA 2,559,000 5,056 506 27 22 1.26 1.42 4.11 4.14 OREGON 2,081,000 3,207 611 31 30 1.02 .90 6.45 12.72 PENNSYLVANIA 11,794,000 14,418 818 3 7 5.8 4.06 1.83 11.64 RHODE ISLAND 950,000 1,390 683 39 37 .47 .39 5.79 14.78 SOUTH CAROLINA 2,591,000 2,379 1,089 26 34 1.28 .67 .19 13.61 SOUTH DAKOTA 666,000 826 808 45 44 .33 .23 -2.35 10.87 TENNESSEE 3,924,000 5,184 757 17 21 1.93 1.46 1.06 8.65 TEXAS 11,197,000 19,074 587 4 4 5.51 5.37 4.14 16.78 UTAH 1,059,000 1,367 775 36 38 .52 .38 5.06 8.4 VERMONT 445,000 611 728 49 49 .22 .17 9.88 19.1 VIRGINIA 4,648,000 6,893 674 14 14 2.29 1.94 3.12 18.86 WASHINGTON 3,409,000 4,671 730 22 23 1.68 1.32 13.4 14.37 WEST VIRGINIA 1,744,000 1,820 958 34 36 .86 .51 2.79 3.05 WISCONSIN 4,418,000 6,697 660 16 15 2.17 1.88 6.18 7.37 WYOMING 332,000 475 699 50 50 .16 .13 9.12 2.81 •See Notes 3 and 4 on page 6. Source: 1971 Lawyer Statistical Report, American Bar Foundation, p. 26. Part II. 9. Population per lawyer in private practice — smaller states. POPULA TIONPER LA WYERINPRIVA TE PRACTICE Smaller States Population Rank in per lawyer in availability private practice of legal services Utah 1,088 29 New Mexico 1,181 36 Maine 1,193 37 Rhode Island 906 14 Hawaii 1,220 40 71 New Hampshire 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 1,085 26 Wyoming 1,027 25 Alaska 965 20 Computed from: 1971 Lawyer Statistical Report, American Bar Foundation. Part II. 10. Ratio of lawyers to Gross N ational Product, 1950-80. RATIO OF LAWYERS TO GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT, 1950-80' GNP in Year Billions Lawyers per Billion Dollars of GNP Institutional Law Student Capacity Demand Projection Projection 1950 $ 372 551 1960 515 485 1963 581 457 1970 793 400 403 1975 981 382 402 1980 1,199 381 411 (GNP Projections are in 1962 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. 1536, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1967, Table 11-1.) Source: Pennsylvania Study (1971), p. 11. 11. Increasing proportion of personal income in the United States going for legal services, 1950-71. INCREASING PROPORTION OF PERSONAL INCOME IN THE UNITED ST A TES GOING FOR LEGAL SERVICES, 1950-71 U.S. Personal Personal Income for Per Cent for Income (Billions) Legal Services (Billions) Legal Services 1950 227.6 2.9 1.3 1955 310.9 5.9 1.9 1960 410.0 10.4 2.6 1965 538.9 22.1 4.1 1966 587.2 26.1 4.5 1967 629.4 30.2 4.8 1968 687.9 35.8 5.2 1969 750.3 5.6 1970 803.6 6.2 1971 857 N.A. Source: Pennsylvania Study (1971), p. 11. Part II. 12. Extract from Cantor and Rose, The Escalation in Salaries of Law School Graduates, 19 Practical Lawyer, 63,64 (1973). Table 1 Compensation to Law School Graduates Offered by Private Firms Cleveland state 1972 1973 Lowest $ 8,000 8,500 Median $12,000 12,500 Highest $15,000 16,500 Cornell 1972 1973 9,000 9,000 16,000 16,000 19,000 20,000 Georgetown U. 1972 1973 12,500 14,000 14,000 15,500 16,000 17,000 Rutgers, Newark 1972 1973 7,500 11,000 10,000 11,000 14,000 15,000 U. of California 1972 1973 12,000 12,000 13,500 14,500 14,500 15,000 Temple 1972 1973 10,000 10,500 12,000 13,000 14,500 16,000 U. of Denver 1972 1973 7,800 7,800 10,000 10,000 13,000 16,000 U. ofMinnesota 1972 1973 7,500 8,400 12,000 13,440 * 16,200 U. of Pittsburgh 1972 1973 9,000 9,000 12,500 12,500 15,000 15,000 U. of Texas 1972 1973 7,200 8,100 9,600 10,200 15,000 18,000 U. of Pennsylvania 1972 1973 8,000 12,000 • * 16,000 18,000 Table 2 Compensation to Law School Graduates Offered by Corporations Cornell Georgetown U. of Texas Lowest Highest 1972 $12,000 $16,000 1973 13,000 16,000 1972 13,000 15,000 1973 13,000 16,500 1972 * 13,200 1973 * 15,000 1972 10,500 12,500 1973 10,500 12,500 1972 12,000 14,400 1973 * 14,500 * Not Available Factors Affecting Compensation. WhOe 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: . . . , , Area—"A Student's academic background is not really the deciding factor in determining the salary he or she will be earning. Rather, it is the city in which the firm is located, the size of the firm, and the firm's self image, especially if it sees itself as competitive with the big prestige firms in that particular city." Genera/£*pcncnce—"Compensation 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." Part II. 13. 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, U tab, Arizona, N ew 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 re-locate. There is a definite trend toward private practice, smaller firms and business jobs. While students are re-locating, it is only within this discrete section and they are not going any further afield than is necessary. Part 11. 13. (Continued). 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 students to go to rural areas and small towns, with significant numbers finding jobs with small firms in outlying districts. Also, Arizona had a higher percentage of sale 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 League 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. Part II. 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 Other Year Total Medicine^ Dentistry^ health Law^ Other® professions® (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 1960-61 26,391 6,940 3,265 1,764 9,429 4,993 1961-62 26,457 7,138 3,183 1,599 9,548 4,989 1962-63 27,097 7,231 3,169 1,691 10,105 4,901 1963-64 27,667 7,303 3,180 1,624 10,868 4,692 1964-65 28,755 7,304 3,108 1,794 11,782 4,767 1965-66 30,799 7,673 3,247 1,834 13,481 4,564 1966-67 32,472 7,723 3,341 2,003 15,114 4,291 1967-68 34,787 7,944 3,422 2,153 16,916 4,352 1968-69 36,018 8,025 3,408 2,290 17,436 4,859 1969-70 35,724 8,314 3,718 2,372 15,445 5,875 1970-71 37,946 8,919 3,745 2,495 17,421 5,366 1971-726 45,200 9,610 3,950 2,720 22,510 6,410 PROJECTED 7 1972-73 54,800 10,920 1973-74 62,600 11,830 1974-75 64,700 13,080 1975-76 66,600 13,340 1976-77 69,400 13,680 1977-78 70,800 14,240 1978-79 73,200 14,830 1979-80 75,100 15,300 1980-81 77,400 15,770 1981-82 79,500 16,250 ^M.D. degrees only. ^D.D.S. or D.M.D. degrees. ^Includes degrees in chiropody or podiatry, optometry, osteopathy, and veterinary medicine. ^LL.B. or J.D. degrees. ^Includes theology and other degrees. ^Estimated. 'First-professional degrees by field were projected by means of the following methods: (1) 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 2,750 29,120 7,780 3,020 34,470 8,780 3,180 34,280 9,070 3,440 35,290 9,360 3,580 37,030 9,740 3,820 37,220 9,920 3,950 38,180 10,240 4,070 39,080 10,500 4,200 40,310 10,820 4,300 41,410 11,090 "other" first-professional degrees are based primarily on the assumption that for men and women separately the percentage that "other" 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 first-professional degrees in medicine, dentistry, other health professions, and the "other" category. 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, 1960-61 through 1970-71. 4,230 4,500 5,090 5,170 5,370 5,600 6,000 6,150 6,300 6,450 Source: Projections of Educational Statistics to 1981-82, 1972 Edition, National Center for Educational Statistics. PART III. NEVADA DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS. Part III. Appendix. 1. State Bar of Nevada, Liaison Committee with Nevada Legislative Commission on Nevada Law School, Report, April, 1974. 2. Population Projections for Nevada. a. Table 1-1: High and Low County Patterns, 1970-2020^. h. By County, 1970-2000. c. Clark County 1970-2000. d. County Population Growth Patterns, 1920-2020. e. County Growth Patterns, 1920-2020. d. Nevada Population, 1920-2020. g. 22-year-olds in Nevada — Proj ections. 3. University of Nevada data. a. Enrollment statistics. University of Nevada — UNLV and UNR. b. Bachelor's degrees conferred by the University of Nevada System. 4. Nevada Bar Information. a. Nevada Bar Admissions — Successful Candidates. b. Law schools contributing members of Nevada Bar, 1969-73; law school — graduates admitted to Nevada Bar, 1969-73. 5. Study of Nevadans taking LSAT and applying to Law School, Educational Testing Service Special Study, June, 1974. 6. LSATMeans for Nevada candidates, ETS., June, 1974. 7. Nevada Bar — provision of Service for low income persons. 8. Nevada Bar Survey. Part III. 1. State Bar of Nevada, Liaison Committee with Nevada Legislative Commission on Nevada Law School, Report, April, 1974. Report Liaison Committee with Nevada Legislative Commission on Nevada Law School The Chairman of the Liaison Committee with Nevada Legislative Commission on the Nevada Law School submits the following report. This committee was established as a liaison committee by the Board of Governors with that committee appointed by the Governor to carry out the intent and effect of Nevada Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 48. Since there is widespread misunderstanding as to what was done in Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 48, it was the feeling of the chairman of your committee that this resolution should be set out in full and it herewith follows: Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 48 — Messrs. Schofield, Lowman, McNeel, Bremner, Hickey, May, Dini, Barengo, Glover, Smalley, Crawford, Howard, Demers, Hayes, Ullom, Craddock, Broadbent, Mrs. Gojack, Messrs. Huff, Jacobsen, Banner, Bickerstaff, Prince, Bennett and Mrs. Brookman. Whereas, The legislature finds that a law school is needed in the University of Nevada System; and Whereas, The legislature finds that it is for the best interests of the state and of the university that a law school be located at University of Nevada, Las Vegas; and Whereas, The legislature at this time desires to have more information in regard to the cost of a law school at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Assembly of the State of Nevada, the Senate Concurring: 1. That a law school be established in the future in the State of Nevada at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. 2. That the Board of Regents of the University of Nevada are authorized to employ a person who would he qualified to serve as a Dean of a Law School from funds not appropriated by the State Legislature to develop plans for the physical facilities of a law school, including a law library, and for the faculty and staff of the law school to be located atthe University of Nevada, Las Vegas. 3. That the information developed be submitted to the Board of Regents of the University of Nevada, the Governor and 58th Session of the Legislature. Pursuant to this resolution the Governor appointed a committee referred to as the Law School Advisory Board whose members are as follows: Dr. Ralph Roske, UNLV, Chairman; Dr. Brock Dixon, UNLV, Dr. Lome Seidman, UNLV, John W. Diel, Don W. Driggs, Hon. John P. Foley, State Senator; Robert M. Galli, Clark J. Guild, Jr., Dr. Laurance M. Hyde, Jr. (Resigned); Jerome Mack, Hon. John Mendoza, District Judge; Mrs. Herb Nail, Hon. William Raggio, State Senator; Hon. Jack Schoefield, Assemblyman; E. Parry Thomas, Mrs. Mary Woitichek, Hon. David Zenoff, Justice of the Supreme Court. On June 29,1973, your chairman and the liaison committee was appointed. As soon as the undersigned was appointed I felt it was necessary to decide two fundamental questions, to-wit; (1) what were we as a committee to do, and, (2) what Part III. 1. (Continued). was to be our relationship with the committee appointed hy the Governor to implement the concurrent resolution. It was agreed hy Mr. Dickerson, as the representative of the Board of Governors, and our committee that the Bar committee should formulate an answer to the following three questions: 1. Should we have a law school in Nevada ? 2. If we do, what will he the estimated capital cost thereof and what will he the annual cost for support? 3. How will the money he raised for the capital costs and for the annual support? The committee appointed hy the Governor has resolved" itself into three suhGovernor has been answered as a result of a conference between myself and Dr. Ralph Roske of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who serves as chairman of that committee. Dr. Roske has been extremely cooperative and has indicated that all members of the committee appointed hy the Bar were welcome at the meetings of the committee established hy the Governor, as well as all subcommittee meetings. Further, he has extended to us the courtesy of sending to us all material which has been made available to the legislative committee. In making this report I cannot overstate the cooperation that I have received from Dr. Roske and the other members of the committee appointed hy the Governor. They have been fully cooperative in seeing that our membership has the opportunity to attend their meetings and participate fully in their discussions. The committee appointed hy the governor has resolved itself into three subcommittees, to-wit; a subcommittee on facilities, a subcommittee on staff and programs and a subcommittee on development. There have been several meetings of the main committee appointed hy the legislature and at least one meeting of the subcommittee concerning facilities. I think it is a fair statement to make that there is no facility presently available at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas which will meet the beginning needs of a law school on other than a very temporary basis. Both the primary Legislative Committee and the Liaison Committee have been furnished with the fea sibility studies which have been done at the various universities that have been considering law schools over the last seven years. These reports are voluminous and each member of our Liaison Committee has been furnished with these reports. As a result of these reports, the material sent to us by the President of the State Bar, and that made available to the Legislative Committee, it was deemed advisable by all concerned that a feasibility study be prepared. In reaching this decision and in establishing a panel from which to select a properly qualified person the Legislative Committee and the Liaison Committee were advised hy Professor Millard H. Ruud, Legal Education Consultant for the American Bar Association and the Association of American Law Schools. Professor Ruud serves on the accreditation committees of both the American Bar Association and the Association of American Law Schools. Caesars World, Inc., the parent corporation of the Caesars Palace Hotel in Las Vegas, Part III. 1. (Continued). has made available for that study, and for the uses and purposes of the Legislative Committee, the sum of $200,000.00 payable $50,000.00 quarterly, commencing January 1, 1974. In addition, Caesars World has pledged the sum of $300,000.00 towards the creation of a law school library, providing a law school is to be established. Several other persons and organizations have contributed substantial sums of money or pledged substantial sums of money towards the creation of a law school contingent upon a feasibility study. Early in 1974, after an extensive review of the qualifications of the candidates was completed, upon recommendation of the legislative committee and Acting President Donald Baepler of UNLV, William H.Pedrick, Dean of the College of Law at the Arizona State University at Tempe, Arizona, was selected by the Board of Regents to conduct a feasibility survey. Dean Pedrick had also prepared the survey at the University of Delaware which led to the establishment of the University of Delaware Law School. That survey was an exemplar in establishing a factual basis for projected costs. The undersigned, as well as several of the members of the Bar Liaison Committee have been Dean Pedrick. We have also been in contact with him since his appointment in connection with the various factual data which he is gathering for the survey. We feel encouraged that the survey will be done on a professional and thorough basis. The next meeting of the Legislative Committee is to be on March 22, 1974, at which time Dean Pedrick will present a progress report on the factual material that he has been able to develop. It is contemplated that at the meeting of the Board of Regents of the University on May 10,1974, a full budget analysis of a proposed law school will be submitted hy Dean Pedrick. Some time in the middle of June, 1974, Dean Pedrick will submit his full report to the Legislative Committee for discussion and action, which action will then be submitted to President Baepler of UNLV for submission to the Board of Regents at their July, 1974, meeting. Presumably their action, if any, will be submitted to the Governor and the Legislature. In' addition to evaluating the various materials which the Board of Regents committee has developed, your committee has also submitted a questionnaire to the admittees for the Nevada State Bar in 1972 and 1973. There were 151 admittees pursuant to information received from the Executive Secretary of the State Bar. We have received 90 responses from the questionnaires. The questions asked and the number of responses to that questionnaire are as follows: 1. If there had been a law school established at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas at the time you were ready to enter law school would you have attended that institution? 2. If there had been a law school established at the University of Nevada at Reno at the time you were ready to enter law school would you have attended that institution? 3. At the time you entered law school were either your parents or your wife Nevada residents? Yes No 15 68 28 54 43 42 Part III. 1. (Continued). 4. At the time you entered law school were you a resident of the State of Nevada? 45 41 5. Since you entered law school have your parents become Nevada residents or have you married a Nevada resident? 13 62 6. Would your answer to Question No. 1 be different if that law school had charged fees and tuition comparable to those charged by a private rather than a state-supported law school? 8 73 7. Would your answer to Question No. 2 he different if that law school had charged fees and tuition comparable to those charged by a private rather than a state-supported law school? 12 71 Since the questions are not necessarily mutually exclusive, the number of answers do not necessarily coincide. There were many individual comments too numerous to mention. The members of the Liaison Committee are deeply concerned over this entire question. The creation of a law school in Nevada will be an expensive problem initially and it will be a continuing expense to the University of Nevada System. The problem of gaining entrance to a law school at this time for a non-resident applicant is a considerable problem. Many state law schools have closed their doors to nonresidents, and therefore, the principal opportunity for Nevada residents is to enter private and/or sectarian law schools. The McGeorge Law School in California has openly sought an affiliation with Nevada. McGeorge Law School is a private school. I think the central issue which concerns the members of the Bar Committee is that if Nevada is going to have a law school that it not have a law school which is established as a "second rate" law school so that Nevada residents who cannot meet requirements elsewhere can go to law school. I think it is becoming increasingly evident that the quality of the Nevada Bar is distinctly above the quality of the Bar in many adjacent states. For Nevada to establish a law school solely and only for the purpose of "sub-standard" law school applicants from Nevada or elsewhere to gain admission to law school, would he a mistake in the opinion of the undersigned. At the same time we feel that the Legislative Committee must demonstrate that there are substantial numbers of fully qualified Nevada residents who cannot gain admission to law school because of other states adoption of restrictive non-resident policies before the Legislature should agree to the expense of substantial sums of moneys which will he necessary for the establishment of a Nevada law school. Unfortunately, the feasibility study of Dean Pedrick has not been completed. I seriously doubt if enough of it will he completed by the meeting of the State Bar for either the Bar or the Board of Governors to take any kind of intelligent action. As soon as that study is completed, together with whatever other information the Board of Governors requests of its committee, it is the undersigned's opinion that the Board of Governors should state their recommendations to the State Legislature at the earliest possible time. It is my understanding that early consideration will be given to this Part III. 1. (Continued). matter by the office of the Governor and other interested parties. If the opinion of the organized Bar is to have an effect it should he enunciated to all concerned individuals promptly upon receiving final and definitive reports. Respectfully submitted. Alvin N. Wartman, Chairman V. DeVoe Heaton PaulH.Schofield Jack G.Perry Laurance M. Hyde, Jr. Richard W. Horton Rex A. Jemison Thomas A. Foley Loyal Robert Hihbs 85 Part III. 2. Population Projections for Nevada. a. Table 1-1: High and Low County Patterns, 1970-2020 Table 1-1: High and Low County Population Growth Patterns, 1970-2020 (1) COUNTY 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Carson City 15,468 31,000 44,000 54,000 60,000 64,000 Churchill 10,513 13,000 15,000 16,000 17,000 18,000 Clark (High) 273,288 500,000 770,000 1,000,000 1,175,000 1,300,000 Clark (Low) 273,288 473,000 662,000 816,000 930,000 986,000 Douglas 6,882 13,000 17,000 20,000 22,000 23,000 Elko 13,958 22,000 28,000 32,000 34,000 35,000 Esmeralda 629 700 750 800 850 900 Eureka 948 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 Humboldt 6,375 7,200 8,000 8,600 9,000 9,200 Lander 2,666 3,200 3,600 3,800 3,850 3,900 Lincoln 2,557 2,700 2,800 2,900 2,950 3,000 Lyon 8,221 11,000 13,500 15,500 17,000 18,500 Mineral 7,051 8,000 8,600 9,000 9,300 9,500 Nye 5,599 7,000 8,500 10,000 3,900 12,000 Pershing 2,670 3,300 3,700 3,950 3,950 4,000 Storey 695 800 850 900 950 1,000 Washoe (High) 121,068 172,000 219,000 249,000 276,000 291,000 Washoe (Low) 121,068 *168,000 206,000 231,000 254,000 260,000 White Pine 10,150 10,500 10,700 10,800 10,850 10,900 NEVADA (High) 488,738 807,000 1,155,000 1,439,000 1,655,000 1,805,000 (Low) 488,738 776,000 1,034,000 1,237,000 1,388,000 1,460,000 ^ ^NOTE: Nevada total has been rounded. Asterisked *numbernot intended for use. Refer to text Part II, Step 7, for explanation. Use 158,000 from Table 1-2. Source: State of Nevada Water Planning Report,FehrvLary,1913. Part III. 2. (Continued). b. By County, 1970-2000. Nevada Population Projections By County for Selected Years, 1970-2000' 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Carson City 15,468 18,819 22,896 26,787 29,343 31,301 33,389 Churchill 10,513 11,664 12,941 13,697 14,726 15,708 16,738 Clark 273,288 332,497 404,533 473,290 518,446 553,033 569,927 Douglas 6,882 8,373 10,187 11,918 13,055 13,926 14,056 Elko 13,958 14,889 15,882 16,942 18,072 19,278 20,566 Esmeralda 629 671 716 763 814 869 927 Eureka 948 1,041 1,144 1,246 1,337 1,426 1,521 Humboldt 6,375 6,800 7,254 7,738 8,234 8,805 9,392 Lauder 2,666 3,244 3,946 4,617 5,039 5,375 5,794 Lincoln 2,557 2,727 2,909 3,104 3,311 3,531 3,767 Lyon 8,221 9,438 10,836 12,170 13,175 14,054 14,992 Mineral 7,051 7,521 8,623 8,558 9,129 9,738 10,888 Nye 5,599 6,273 7,028 7,759 8,359 8,917 9,511 Pershing 2,670 2,848 3,038 3,241 3,457 3,688 3,834 Storey 695 763 839 914 980 1,046 1,118 Washoe 121,068 143,790 170,778 196,441 214,132 228,417 243,055 White Pine 10,150 10,827 11,549 12,320 13,142 14,018 14,954 TOTAL 488,738 582,185 694,499 801,505 874,771 933,130 995,382 11970 figures from U.S. Census. 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995 and 2000 figures from Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Nevada. S.F.Cbu, March 1971 Source: State of Nevada, Department of Economic Development. Part III. 2. (Continued). c. Clark County 1970-2000. Population Projection Clark County 1970-2000 Entity 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Las Vegas max med min 125,787 143,850 143,390 143,190 202,000 190,000 185,000 250,000 229,000 218,000 284,000 262,000 244,000 312,000 280,000 264,000 335,000 295,000 275,000 North Las Vegas max med min 45,542 61,150 61,030 60,920 70,000 67,000 64,000 87,000 80,000 76,000 100,000 91,000 85,000 110,000 96,000 90,000 120,000 100,000 95,000 Henderson max med min 16,395 18,320 17,920 17,840 24,000 21,000 19,000 29,000 24,000 22,000 32,000 25,000 23,000 42,000 28,000 25,000 50,000 29,000 26,000 Unincorporated Valley max med min 74,084 106,740 106,470 106,160 150,000 143,000 135,000 180,000 167,000 158,000 205,000 187,000 178,000 255,000 235,000 225,000 300,000 275,000 265,000 Boulder City max med min 5,223 6,140 6,120 6,100 6,895 6,570 6,450 9,050 8,400 7,950 10,480 9,560 9,100 13,000 12,150 10,100 15,000 14,550 12,000 Unincorporated County, Other max med min 6,257 6,760 6,740 6,720 7,405 7,080 6,950 18,500 17,500 14,900 28,520 27,540 20,900 32,500 31,000 24,000 36,000 35,450 27,000 Total max med min 273,288 342,960 341,670 340,930 460,000 434,650 416,400 573,550 525,900 496,850 660,000 602,100 560,000 764,500 682,750 638,100 856,000 745,000 700,000 Source; The Report of Local Governments in Clark County, 1973, Local Government Study Committee of the Nevada State Legislature. Part III. 2. (Continued). d. County Population Growth Patterns, 1920-2020. O _ O O OlO O^tOOO 005000 OlOOOOOOO 2'^SSSS§oo 0,^000000 o^ooooogo CM o ^ ^ S rt" o" CO f-T tj7 Co" cm" to CO" cm" go of oT ic CO r-H o CO »-< coop LOt>CD(MOCO'-H.-H^ CM ' lO O CO CM _ o oco OCOOOO OCDOOOOOO co" r ^ of of Tf CO CO • O (M p. Tt-.r 22 oj lo" tr-" co" -a>" c-" '--ICX)(M'-l'-l § t Q CM (M « ^ ^ CO O CO Tf ,2 iSr^r! »-kC05^ >MC CJ^^H CC O CTs Q ot^ ottooo ooioooooo 5^ g So 8g 8^g8_8^8^ 8^ <>i-t ^ ^ 2 ScT CO COt-HCO CJO CX) ^ COCO T-HOCM g Co ^ oo OlOCOi-HCOCM^i-H CM ^ ^ S r-_ (M " 0005 QOCOOOOOCCI f-CDOO^-igCOlOoi 22'^. SgSSfnSS ® SU yy ^3 . I I . »_• (M Oi f-H LO M Uj UJ 03 .4J ^ £2 ^OTg!§gg CO^CD_CD„05-HincOCD c/3 •£ ~ 22 00" co" co" rn" LO" CD" r-T co" QO" 10" o" CD" t- g (M CM O (N O) ~ ^ T—t Jf />M 1 lr^ 1—I CM _C o O ^ >. ^ S o S S'"- S5°^g2s3 L;735?:SSS SSSS£SS§2 :S IS C CO ^ o ^ CM g? t- o t2 2. '"I 10 r- co__ 10 CO ^ .2^ ^n-Ct>r cDTrcOCOCOCMCD-^tCOlOCOCOCO'-iaiCM (Q i i g i ii iiiSi iSSisSII iS§iigig= 5" :S - g S g-^COCOCD^COOCO- 05 00 .g § § '"' " S ° S 5: 2: s ^ S o s S 55 ° S 3, o ?q f-. f-. 3, n 01 '2 W (N ^ C35 - cd" t-" !N"co"(>]" o" O^COCO-cTCN g C ^ I gi |S s .0 05 - 00 CJCCOCOIOCO'H D) (N.-i.-i;^CO '-^ « g'-'55^coc5j^M;5^ CL C :§ cc z o 3 Q. o Q. < D < > 1,000,000 500,000 200,000 100,000 10,000 CLARK WASHOE REMAINING COUNTIES CARSON CITY DOUGLAS 1920 30 Source: Water for Nevada, Water Planning Report #5. Prepared by the State Engineer's Office, Carson City, Nevada, February 1973. Part III. 2. (Continued). h Nevada Population, 1920-2020. 2,000,000 Nevada Population, 1920-2020 Figure 1-1 1,000,000 700,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 70,000 PAST 1 PP lOJECTbo HIGH LOW CENSL Is YEAR 3 91 H: High population growth line (See Table 1-1). M: Most probable population growth line. The M-line was determined by probability model solution, whereas the H-hne 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). Source- Water for Nevada, Water Planning Report #5. Prepared by the State Engineer's Office, Carson City, Nevada, February, 1973. Year Population 1970 491,000 1973 548,000 (projected) 1980 770,000 Part III. 2. (Continued). g. 22-year-olds in Nevada — Projections. Average Age Nevada Population: 27.8 Number in 21-24 age group: 35,000 (probably+) 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: In-State Students Out-of-State Students Out-of-State Percentage b. Bachelor's Degrees conferred by the University of Nevada System. 1971-72 UN-Reno 873 UN-Las Vegas 467 1340 1972-73 UN-Reno 890 UN-Las Vegas 483 1373 1973-74 UN-Reno 858 UN-Las Vegas 533 1391 UNLV UNR 4,651 5,414 467 1,282 10% 24% Part III. 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. 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 1972 36 38 48 48 Part III. 4. (Continued). 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. of San 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. of Colorado 7 U. of Illinois 2 Georgetown U. Law Ctr. 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 YorkU. 5 U. of Wisconsin 2 U. of Southern Cal. 5 U. of Miami 2 Loyola 4 U. of South Carolina 2 U. ofIdaho 4 Brooklyn Law School 2 Amer. U., College of Law 4 Duquesne U. 1 U. ofTexas 4 Duke 1 U. of Washington 4 Harvard 1 Part III. 4. (Continued). b. Law schools contributing members of Nevada Bar, 1969-73; law school — graduates admit Washington and Lee Ohio State Cambridge U. John Marshall U. of New Mexico Cumberland Drake Washburn U. of Topeka Indiana State U. of N ew York Syracuse U. Cal. Western School of Law Catholic U. of Amer. U. of Chicago Case Western Reserve U. Kent College of Law Louisiana State U. U. of North Dakota U. of Michigan Lewis and Clarke Cornell Suffolk U. U. of Missouri Rnvlnr TT. ed to Nevada Bar, 1969-73, (Continued). U. of Virginia U. of North Carolina U. of Tennessee Northwestern U. U. of Kansas Southern Methodist U. Gonzaga Part III. 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 1,1972 - 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 __ Part III. 5. (Continued). Law Schools Grouped by State Applicants Admitted Registered North Dakota 4 1 - Ohio 11 2 - Oklahoma 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 1 - ~ 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 LSD AS file plus a few students who, for one reason or another, do not go through LSD AS 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. i i / o\ • 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 LSD AS 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 he 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 Part III. 5. (Continued). that 206 students from Nevada took the LSAT, indicating a 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 LSD AS in 1972-73, an average of 4.9 law schools were designated to receive reports. On that basis, we estimate that about 200 separate individuals registered with LSD AS 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. There 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 first-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. Part III. 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 Date Number of Candidates LSAT WA 1970-72 356 521 49 1968-70 231 511 49 1966-68 175 521 50 National Number of Candidates LSAT 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 students took 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." Part III. 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 in 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 assistance, three attorneys handled 1,320 cases. In addition, approximately 1,000 cases which qualified for assistance were rejected because of lack of staff, thereby depriving many citizens of the State of essential legal service. Response by members of the Bar to an earlier request for assistance by the 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: "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 situation 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, /s/ GORDONTHOMPSON, Chief Justice Part III. 8. Nevada Bar Survey. Q UES TIONNA IRE RES UL TS 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. 1. Geographic Distribution of Respondents. Number % Number % Las Vegas 147 45 Incline Village 4 1 Reno 113 35 Tonopah 2 .6 Carson City 30 9 Yerrington 2 .6 Sparks 7 2 Other 13 4 Elko 6 2 101 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. 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: TWT T c Utah 10 New Jersey 6 Illinois 10 Oregon 5 New York 9 Other 47 The 47 respondents in the category listed as "other" resided in 23 different states. Part III. 8. (Continued). 5. Years in Which Respondents were Licensed to Practice Law in Nevada. Number 1900-1929 6 1930-1935 2 1936-1940 6 1941-1945 2 1946-1950 13 1951-1955 34 1956-1960 21 1961-1965 54 1966-1970 85 1971-1973 82 6. Members of Nevada Bar Also Licensed in Other States. 2^02* ^^5, 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: California Utah Colorado New York Number % Number % 58 18 Illinois 7 2 10 3 Arizona 6 2 8 2 Texas 4 1 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 Imme or that they have resided in Nevada since early childhood. The other states and the frequency with which they were mentioned are as follows: California Utah Illinois Colorado Number 71 15 9 9 22 5 3 3 New York Arizona Virginia Other Number 8 5 5 60 % 2 1 1 19 The 60 respondents in the category listed as "other" resided in 25 different states prior to attaining their Nevada domicile. Part III. 8. (Continued). 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 Lawyers recruited in last five years Lawyers recruited in last year Lawyers likely to recruit in next three years It may be noted that if the above averages accurately reflect the growth of law firms and legal departments in Nevada, the average organization will contain six members in 1977. This would be an increase of 40 per cent. 10. Recruitment of Lawyers hy 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 U. C., Berkeley Hastings Stanford U.C.L.A. 3.61 3.2 1.9 2.4 7 Denver University 5 7 McGeorge School of Law 4 6 Harvard University 3 5 Arizona State University 3 5 University of San Francisco 2 Part IV. From a specially-commissioned study by Dr. Bernard Malamud, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Nevada, Las V egas. 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 through the 1960's and into the 1970'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. ^ j • 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. ., i j / j 4. \ Even if tourist demand warrants such continued rapid grov^h, land (and water) availability for resort hotels, for resort worker housing, for housing support industry workers drawn to Las Vegas by resort industry gro^^dh, and for conimercial 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 MGM Grand Hotel, the largest ever, accounted for a smaller perce^age 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^ The mathematical model adopted for measuring growdi 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 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 TheSnhSgrowth rate model "fits" most of the economic data series well Like the constant growth rate model, however, it too can lead to questionable projections. Theeshmatef35/100of 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 Zmher of hotel rooms thereafter. Such absolute decline is possible: old rooms may be Part IV. From a specially-commissioned study by Dr. Bernard Malamud, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, (Continued). demolished and replaced by more spacious but fewer rooms; hotels may be converted to othei 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; increases 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 j^Qg the natural logarithm of the data series is estimated as a function of time and timesquared; 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: MODELA Yt = EXP (K) EXP (bt) where Y t = projection of activity in year t. K = constant term measured for the model, b = time coefficient measured for the model. t = year for which projection is made; t = 1 for first year of data series^ t = 2 for second year, etc. Thus, the constant growth rate model projects an activity as a constant, EXP (K), multiplied by a term that increases exponentially with time, EXP (bt). MODELB Yt = EXP (K) EXP (bt-ct2) where c = time equared coefficient measured for the model. All other symbols are as defined before. Part IV. From a specially-commissioned study by Dr. Bernard Malamud, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, (Continued). Thus, the declining growth rate model projects an activity as a constant term, 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 timesquared coefficients equal the corresponding coefficients of Models A and B weighted by these models' respective information contents, i.e., inversely to their estimation variances. 109 Part IV. Extracts from Nevada's Economic Prospects. Table 1 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) Gaming revenues, bank deposits, and tax collections expressed in 1967 dollars. (b) Transaction tax revenues, net of local school support tax; includes sales tax, gasoline, cigarette, and liquor taxes. Part IV. Table 2a Projections of Las Vegas Resort Employment (000) MODELA CONSTANT COEF = 2.351000 TIMECOEF= .078835 TIME SQUARED COEF = INFO CONTENT 2143 WEIGHT IN MODEL C .402 YEAR 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 TRUE VALUE 10.9 11.9 13.4 14.8 15.2 17.2 18.9 19.7 20.9 23.4 25.6 27.1 31.3 32.8 33.0 35.5 38.5 ESTIMATE 10.5 II.4 12.3 13.3 14.4 15.6 16.8 18.2 19.7 21.3 23.1 25.0 27.0 29.2 31.6 34.2 37.1 40.1 43.4 46.9 50.8 55.0 59.5 64.3 69.6 75.3 81.5 88.2 95.4 103.3 III.7 120.9 130.8 141.5 MODELB 2.298000 .095385 -.000919 3182 .598 ESTIMATE 10.0 10.9 12.0 13.1 14.4 15.7 17.1 18.6 20.1 21.8 23.6 25.4 27.4 29.5 31.6 33.9 36.2 38.6 41.1 43.8 46.4 49.2 52.0 54.9 57.9 60.8 63.9 66.9 70.0 73.1 76.1 79.2 82.2 85.2 MODELC 2.319329 .088725 -.000549 5325 ESTIMATE 10.2 11.1 12.1 13.2 14.4 15.6 17.0 18.4 20.0 21.6 23.4 25.3 27.2 29.4 31.6 34.0 36.5 39.2 42.0 45.0 48.1 51.4 54.9 58.5 62.3 66.3 70.5 74.8 79.3 84.0 88.8 93.9 99.1 104.5 ) GROWTH, C 9.2 9.1 9.0 8.9 8.7 8.6 8.5 8.4 8.3 8.1 8.0 7.9 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.4 7.3 7.2 7.1 7.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.3 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.7 5.6 5.4 111 Part IV. Table 2b Projections ofMcCarranAir Travelers, Enplaning and Deplaning (000) MODELA MODELB MODELC CONSTANT COEF = 5.571415 5.286415 5.368183 TIME COEF = .153030 .227250 .205956 TIME SQUARED COEF = -.003374 -.002406 INFO CONTENT 852 2118 2970 WEIGHT IN MODEL C .287 .713 YEAR TRUE VALUE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE % GROWTH, C 1952 262.8 197.6 214.5 % GROWTH, C 1953 214.0 306.3 247.2 262.9 22.6 1954 311.0 356.9 307.2 320.7 22.0 1955 441.0 415.9 379.1 389.3 21.4 1956 436.0 484.7 464.7 470.4 20.8 1957 585.0 564.9 565.8 565.6 20.2 1958 686.0 658.3 684.3 676.8 19.7 1959 960.0 767.1 822.1 805.9 19.1 1960 1079.0 894.0 980.9 955.1 18.5 1961 1132.0 1041.8 1162.5 1126.5 17.9 1962 1285.0 1214.0 1368.6 1322.3 17.4 1963 1445.0 1414.8 1600.2 1544.7 16.8 1964 1700.0 1648.8 1858.6 1795.8 16.3 1965 1908.0 1921.4 2144.1 2077.7 15.7 1966 2364.0 2239.1 2456.8 2392.3 15.1 1967 2848.0 2609.4 2796.2 2741.3 14.6 1968 3522.0 3040.9 3161.1 3126.1 14.0 1969 4031.0 3543.7 3549.6 3547.9 13.5 1970 4087.0 4129.7 3959.0 4007.2 12.9 1971 4102.0 4812.6 4385.9 4504.3 12.4 1972 4607.0 5608.4 4826.2 5038.7 11.9 1973 53970.0 6535.8 5275.0 5609.5 11.3 1974 7616.5 5726.7 6215.0 10.8 1975 8876.0 6175.3 6852.7 10.3 1976 10343.7 6614.3 7519.7 9.7 1977 12054.2 7036.8 8211.9 9.2 1978 14047.4 7436.0 8924.8 8.7 1979 16370.3 7805.0 9653.1 8.2 1980 19077.3 8137.2 10390.6 7.6 1981 22231.9 8426.5 11130.8 7.1 1982 25908.2 8667.3 11866.5 6.6 1983 30192.4 8855.1 12590.1 6.1 1984 35185.0 8986.1 13293.7 5.6 1985 41003.2 9057.8 13969.3 5.1 1986 47783.5 9068.6 14608.7 4.6 1987 55684.9 9018.3 15204.0 4.1 1988 64893.0 8908.1 15747.6 3.6 1989 75623.7 8739.9 16232.4 3.1 Part IV. Table 2c Projections of Average Daily Auto Counts on 1-15 (LA-LV), Both Directions MODELA CONSTANT COEF = 8.289000 TIMECOEF= .063066 TIME SQUARED COEF = INFO CONTENT 250 WEIGHT IN MODEL C .346 YEAR 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 MODELB 8.165000 .107130 -.002754 472 .654 MODELC 8.207910 .091882 -.001801 722 TRUE VALUE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE 3979.9 3515.7 3669.9 3776.0 4238.9 3902.5 4015.8 4284.0 4514.9 4308.1 4378.5 4973.0 4808.8 4729.6 4756.9 4802.0 5121.8 5163.9 5149.3 6002.0 5455.2 5607.2 5554.1 6311.0 5810.3 6055.0 5969.2 6408.0 6188.6 6502.6 6392.2 6752.0 6591.4 6945.0 6820.6 7640.0 7020.5 7376.8 7251.5 7888.0 7477.5 7792.4 7682.0 8139.0 7964.3 8186.1 8108.7 8085.0 8482.8 8552.5 8528.3 8360.0 9035.0 8886.3 8937.5 9110.0 9623.1 9182.3 9332.5 10140.0 10249.6 9436.1 9710.0 10916.8 9643.7 10066.5 11627.4 9801.6 10398.5 12384.3 9907.5 10702.8 13190.5 9959.4 10976.5 14049.2 9956.7 11216.6 14963.8 9899.3 11420.8 15937.8 9788.1 11586.9 16975.4 9625.0 11713.2 18080.4 9412.7 11798.2 19257.4 9154.5 11841.2 20511.0 8854.5 11841.6 21846.2 8517.2 11799.4 23268.3 8147.8 11715.0 24783.0 7751.6 11589.5 26396.3 7334.2 11424.1 28114.6 6901.1 11220.5 29944.8 6457.9 10981.0 % GROWTH, C 9.4 9.0 8.6 8.3 7.9 7.5 7.1 6.7 6.3 5.9 5.6 5.2 4.8 4.4 4.0 3.7 3.3 2.9 2.6 2.2 1.8 1.5 1.1 .7 .4 .0 - .4 - .7 -1.1 -1.4 -1.8 o 1 113 Part IV. Table 2d Projections of Average Daily Auto Count, All Hwys. to L V, Both Directions MODELA MODELB MODELC CONSTANT COEF = 9.104000 9.019000 9.053853 TlMECOEF= .053000 .083060 .070734 TIME SQUARED COEF = -.001879 -.001109 INFO CONTENT 265 381 646 WEIGHT IN MODEL C .410 .590 YEAR TRUE VALUE 1957 1958 8556.0 1959 9732.0 1960 10931.0 1961 10764.0 1962 12329.0 1963 13060.0 1964 13304.0 1965 14444.0 1966 15973.0 1967 15354.0 1968 15920.0 1969 15790.0 1970 16980.0 1971 18460.0 1972 20130.0 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 ESTIMATE ESTIMATE 8991.2 8258.5 9480.6 8956.9 9996.6 9677.9 10540.7 10417.8 11114.4 11172.1 11719.4 11936.1 12357.3 12704.6 13029.9 13471.7 13739.1 14231.7 14486.9 14978.0 15275.4 15704.5 16106.9 16404.3 16983.5 17071.1 17907.9 17698.4 18882.7 18279.9 19910.5 18809.6 20994.2 19282.2 22136.9 19692.4 23341.8 20036.0 24612.3 20309.0 25951.9 20508.6 27364.4 20632.5 28853.9 20679.2 30424.4 20648.3 32080.4 20540.1 33826.5 20355.9 35667.7 20097.6 37609.1 19768.2 39656.1 19371.2 41814.6 18911.0 44090.5 18392.5 46490.3 17821.1 49020.8 17202.7 ESTIMATE % GROWTH, C 8551.4 9168.0 7.2 9807.4 7.0 10468.0 6.7 11148.4 6.5 11846.8 6.3 12561.0 6.0 13288.8 5.8 14027.6 5.6 14774.7 5.3 15527.1 5.1 16281.7 4.9 17035.2 4.6 17784.0 4.4 18524.7 4.2 19253.5 3.9 19966.6 3.7 20660.3 3.5 21330.7 3.2 21974.1 3.0 22586.8 2.8 23165.2 2.6 23705.7 2.3 24205.2 2.1 24660.4 1.9 25068.6 1.7 25427.1 1.4 25733.5 1.2 25986.0 1.0 26182.9 .8 26322.8 .5 26404.9 .3 26428.6 .1 Part IV. Table 2e Projection of Las Vegas Commercial and Resort Hotel-Motel Rooms MODELA CONSTANT COEF =1.325000 TIME COEF = .078270 TIME SQUARED COEF = INFO CONTENT 489 WEIGHT IN MODEL C .425 YEAR 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 TRUE VALUE 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 3.0 115 Part IV. Table 2f Projection of Las Vegas Convention Attendance (000) MODELA CONSTANT COEF = 4.396000 TIMECOEF= .141150 TIME SQUARED COEF = INFO CONTENT 139 WEIGHT IN MODEL C .422 116 YEAR 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 TRUE VALUE 79.0 95.0 157.0 154.0 155.0 207.0 219.0 269.0 312.0 290.0 357.0 ESTIMATE 81.1 93.4 107.6 123.9 142.7 164.3 189.2 217.9 250.9 289.0 332.8 383.2 441.3 508.2 585.3 674.0 776.2 893.9 1029.4 1185.4 1365.1 1572.1 1810.4 2084.8 2400.9 2764.9 3184.0 3666.7 MODELB 4.191000 .253568 -.007877 190 .578 ESTIMATE 66.1 84.5 106.3 131.7 160.7 192.9 227.9 265.1 303.5 342.1 379.5 414.5 445.6 471.6 491.3 503.8 508.6 505.3 494.3 475.9 451.0 420.8 386.5 349.4 310.9 272.3 234.8 199.3 MODELC 4.277523 .206120 -.004552 330 ESTIMATE 72.1 88.2 106.9 128.4 152.8 180.2 210.7 244.0 280.1 318.6 359.1 401.0 443.8 486.7 529.0 569.7 607.9 642.9 673.7 699.5 719.8 734.0 741.6 742.5 736.7 724.4 705.7 681.3 ) GROWTH, C 22.3 21.2 20.1 19.0 18.0 16.9 15.8 14.8 13.7 12.7 11.7 10.7 9.7 8.7 7.7 6.7 5.7 4.8 3.8 2.9 2.0 1.0 .1 - .8 -1.7 -2.6 -3.5 Partly. Table 2g Projections of Clark County Gaming Revenues, Expressed in Dollars MODELA CONSTANT COEF =4.045000 TIME COEF = .093432 TIME SQUARED COEF = INFO CONTENT 2375 WEIGHT IN MODEL C .469 YEAR 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 TRUE VALUE 62.4 69.0 75.2 84.2 94.2 '97.8 121.3 121.1 129.0 149.0 153.8 173.3 179.4 193.1 209.5 250.8 296.8 317.5 329.3 380.0 446.8 ESTIMATE 57.1 62.7 68.8 75.6 83.0 91.1 100.0 109.8 120.6 132.4 145.4 159.6 175.2 192.4 211.3 231.9 254.7 279.6 307.0 337.0 370.1 406.3 446.1 489.8 537.7 590.4 648.2 711.7 781.4 857.9 942.0 1034.2 1135.5 1246.7 1368.8 1502.9 1650.0 1 ai 1 fi MODELB 4.098000 .079731 .000623 2687 .531 ESTIMATE 60.2 65.3 70.8 76.9 83.7 91.1 99.4 108.5 118.6 129.8 142.3 156.1 171.5 188.6 207.8 229.1 252.9 279.6 309.5 343.0 380.6 422.9 470.4 523.9 584.3 652.4 729.4 816.4 915.0 1026.7 1153.6 1297.7 1461.7 1648.4 1861.3 2104.3 2382.1 9fi09 8 MODELC 4.073131 .086160 .000331 5062 ESTIMATE 58.7 64.0 69.9 76.3 83.4 91.1 99.7 109.1 119.5 131.0 143.7 157.7 173.2 190.4 209.4 230.4 253.7 279.6 308.3 340.2 375.6 415.0 458.8 507.6 562.0 622.5 690.1 765.5 849.7 943.8 1048.9 1166.6 1298.4 1445.9 1611.3 1796.9 2005.1 2238.9 , GROWTH, C 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.8 9.9 10.0 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 10.9 11.0 11.1 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 117 Part IV. Table 2h Projections of Clark County Bank Deposits, Expressed in 1967Dollars MODELA MODELB MODELC CONSTANT COEF=-4.986000 4.866000 4.918079 TIMECOEF= .095546 .137848 .119489 TIME SQUARED COEF = -.002644 -.001497 INFO CONTENT 349 455 803 WEIGHT IN MODEL C .434 .566 YEAR TRUE VALUE 1957 1958 147.1 1959 162.4 1960 180.9 1961 217.1 1962 284.2 1963 295.2 1964 303.1 1965 307.9 1966 319.7 1967 401.5 1968 438.3 1969 448.5 1970 471.6 1971 573.9 1972 572.9 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 ESTIMATE ESTIMATE 146.3 129.8 161.0 148.6 177.2 169.2 194.9 191.7 214.5 216.0 236.0 242.0 259.6 269.9 285.7 299.3 314.3 330.2 345.8 362.3 380.5 395.5 418.6 429.4 460.6 463.8 506.8 498.3 557.6 532.5 613.5 566.1 675.0 598.7 742.7 629.7 817.2 658.9 899.1 685.8 989.2 710.1 1088.4 731.3 1197.5 749.2 1317.6 763.4 1449.7 773.9 1595.0 780.3 1755.0 782.7 1930.9 780.9 2124.5 775.0 2337.5 765.1 2571.8 751.3 2829.7 733.9 3113.4 713.1 ESTIMATE % GROWTH, C 136.7 153.9 12.5 172.6 12.2 193.1 11.9 215.3 11.5 239.4 11.2 265.4 10.9 293.3 10.5 323.2 10.2 355.1 9.9 388.9 9.5 424.7 9.2 462.4 8.9 502.0 8.6 543.3 8.2 586.2 7.9 630.7 7.6 676.5 7.3 723.4 6.9 771.3 6.6 820.0 6.3 869.0 6.0 918.3 5.7 967.5 5.4 1016.2 5.0 1064.2 4.7 1111.1 4.4 1156.7 4.1 1200.5 3.8 1242.3 3.5 1281.6 3.2 1318.3 2.9 1351.9 2.6 Partly. Table 2i Projections of Nevada State Use Tax Collections, Expressed in 1967Dollars MODELA CONSTANT COEF =3.086000 TIME COEF = .074595 TIME SQUARED COEF = INFO CONTENT 286 WEIGHT IN MODEL C .406 YEAR 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 TRUE VALUE 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 5V.7 62.2 67.0 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 4.5 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 .1 119 Part IV. Table 2j Projections of Reno Resort Employment (000) MODELA MODELB MODELC CONSTANT COEF = 1.655000 1.645000 1.650137 TIMECOEF= .063466 .066510 .064946 TIME SQUARED COEF = -.000169 -.000082 INFO CONTENT 1064 1007 2071 WEIGHT IN MODEL C .514 .486 YEAR TRUE VALUE 1956 1957 5.5 1958 5.8 1959 6.4 1960 6.9 1961 7.1 1962 7.6 1963 8.3 1964 9.0 1965 9.6 1966 9.9 1967 10.2 1968 10.5 1969 11.5 1970 12.7 1971 15.0 1972 14.6 1973 14.7 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 ESTIMATE ESTIMATE 5.2 5.2 5.6 5.5 5.9 5.9 6.3 6.3 6.7 6.7 7.2 7.2 7.7 7.7 8.2 8.2 8.7 8.7 9.3 9.3 9.9 9.9 10.5 10.6 11.2 11.2 11.9 12.0 12.7 12.7 13.6 13.5 14.4 14.4 15.4 15.3 16.4 16.2 17.5 17.2 18.6 18.3 19.8 19.4 21.1 20.6 22.5 21.9 24.0 23.2 25.6 24.6 27.3 26.0 29.0 27.6 30.9 29.2 33.0 30.9 35.1 32.7 37.4 34.6 39.9 36.6 42.5 38.7 ESTIMATE % GROWTH, C 5.2 5.6 6.7 5.9 6.7 6.3 6.7 6.7 6.6 7.2 6.6 7.7 6.6 8.2 6.6 8.7 6.6 9.3 6.6 9.9 6.5 10.5 6.5 11.2 6.5 11.9 6.5 12.7 6.5 13.5 6.5 14.4 6.4 15.3 6.4 16.3 6.4 17.4 6.4 18.5 6.4 19.6 6.4 20.9 6.3 22.2 6.3 23.6 6.3 25.1 6.3 26.7 6.3 28.3 6.2 30.1 6.2 32.0 6.2 33.9 6.2 36.0 6.2 38.3 6.2 40.6 6.1 Part IV. Table 2k Projections of Daily Auto Traffic on 1-80, California to Reno, Nevada MODELA CONSTANT COEF = 8.607000 TIME COEF = .074249 TIME SQUARED COEF = INFO CONTENT 241 WEIGHT IN MODEL C .172 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 MODELB 8.484000 .130905 -.004721 1159 .828 MODELC 8.505188 .121145 -.003908 1401 TRUE VALUE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ' % GROWTH, C 5469.8 4836.8 4940.3 5465.0 5891.4 5487.3 5554.8 12.4 6010.0 6345.5 6166.7 6197.2 11.6 7040.0 6834.6 6865.2 6859.9 10.7 7695.0 7361.3 7571.0 7534.5 9.8 8455.0 7928.7 8270.9 8210.9 9.0 8970.0 8539.8 8950.6 8878.4 8.1 9175.0 9198.0 9595.1 9525.5 7.3 10141.0 9907.0 10189.3 10140.1 6.5 10675.0 10670.5 10718.7 10710.4 5.6 11350.0 11493.0 11169.6 11224.6 4.8 11550.0 12378.8 11530.1 11672.0 4.0 13332.9 11790.3 12042.7 3.2 14360.5 11943.2 12328.5 2.4 15467.3 11984.3 12522.8 1.6 16659.5 11912.6 12621.1 .8 17943.5 11730.0 12621.1 .0 19326.5 11441.7 12522.9 - .8 20816.1 11055.5 12328.8 -1.6 22420.5 10582.0 12043.1 -2.3 24148.6 10033,7 11672.5 -3.1 26009.8 9424.3 11225.2 -3.8 28014.5 8768.7 10711.1 -4.6 30173.7 8082.1 10140.9 -5.3 32499.4 7379.2 9526.3 -6.1 35004.3 6674.2 8879.3 -6.8 37702.2 5979.7 8211.8 -7.5 40608.1 5307.2 7535.3 -8.2 121 Part V. Appendix. 1. Table — Population and Personal Income. 2. Table — State Revenue, by Type of Tax: 1972. 3. Table — Expenditure by Type and Function: 1972. 4. Table — Relation of Selected Financial Items to Personal Income: 1972. Part V. 1. Table — Population and Personal Income. Supplementary Reference Data Table 20. Population and Personal Income July 1,1972 State (provisional estimates) ALLSTATES" 207,484,000 ALABAMA 3,510,000 ALASKA 325,000 ARIZONA 1,945,000 ARKANSAS 1,978,000 CALIFORNIA 20,468,000 COLORADO 2,357,000 CONNECTICUT 3,082,000 DELAWARE 565,000 FLORIDA 7,259,000 GEORGIA 4,720,000 HAWAII 809,000 IDAHO 756,000 ILLINOIS 11,251,000 INDIANA 5,291,000 IOWA 2,883,000 KANSAS 2,258,000 KENTUCKY 3,299,000 LOUISIANA 3,720,000 MAINE 1,029,000 MARYLAND 4,056,000 MASSACHUSETTS 5,787,000 MICHIGAN 9,082,000 MINNESOTA 3,896,000 MISSISSIPPI 2,263,000 MISSOURI 4,753,000 MONTANA 719,000 NEBRASKA 1,525,000 NEVADA 527,000 NEW HAMPSHIRE 771,000 NEW JERSEY 7,367,000 NEW MEXICO 1,065,000 NEW YORK 18,366,000 NORTH CAROLINA 5,214,000 NORTH DAKOTA 632,000 OHIO 10,783,000 OKLAHOMA 2,634,000 OREGON 2,182,000 PENNSYLVANIA 11,926,000 RHODE ISLAND 968,000 SOUTH CAROLINA 2,665,000 SOUTH DAKOTA 679,000 TENNESSEE 4,031,000 TEXAS 11,649,000 UTAH 1,126,000 VERMONT 462,000 VIRGINIA 4,764,000 WASHINGTON 3,443,000 WEST VIRGINIA 1,781,000 WISCONSIN 4,520,000 WYOMING 345,000 Total population, excluding Armed Forces overseas' July 1,1971 (provisional estimates) 205,465,000 3,487,000 313,000 1,862,000 I,951,000 20,286,000 2,277,000 3,068,000 559,000 7,025,000 4,664,000 790,000 737,000 11,182,000 5,244,000 2,860,000 2,257,000 3,276,000 3,693,000 I,012,000 4,007,000 5,762,000 8,996,000 3,860,000 2,250,000 4,717,000 710,000 1,508,000 510,000 758,000 7,305,000 1,045,000 18,349,000 5,158,000 628,000 10,739,000 2,600,000 2,139,000 II,901,000 969,000 2,663,000 674,000 3,994,000 II,428,000 1,095,000 454,000 4,720,000 3,442,000 1,768,000 4,473,000 339,000 Personal income calendar yearl9712 Amount (millions of dollars) 852,667 10,765 1,525 7,287 6,005 94.118 9,457 15,322 2,610 27,611 16,786 3,694 2,511 53,400 21,120 11,088 9,460 10,830 12,010 3,416 18.119 26,285 39,850 15,564 6.273 18,587 2,575 6,077 2,460 2,877 35,146 3,448 91,742 17,661 2,222 44,833 9,140 8,470 49,349 3,957 8.274 2,321 13,183 42,582 3,768 1,650 18,400 14,221 5,789 17,496 1,331 Per capita (dollars) 4,150 3,087 4,875 3,913 3,078 4,640 4,153 4,995 4,673 3,930 3,599 4,738 3,409 4,775 4,027 3,877 4,192 3,306 3,252 3,375 4,522 4,562 4,430 4,032 2,788 3,940 3,629 4,030 4,822 3,796 4,811 3,298 5,000 3,424 3,538 4,175 3,515 3,959 4,147 4,126 3,142 3.441 3,300 3,726 3.442 3,638 3,899 4,132 3,275 3,912 3,929 State government portion of State-Local totals (percent) Tax revenue Payrolls in fiscal for October 1970-713 54.5 74.0 69.9 61.1 72.6 46.5 50.2 48.4 79.7 60.1 63.9 76.4 64.0 54.6 49.7 49.8 49.2 73.2 70.7 55.5 56.8 47.4 57.5 56.8 73.7 49.9 45.3 45.1 58.7 41.4 41.2 78.9 49.3 74.9 54.2 45.1 64.1 49.4 58.6 60.8 76.6 41.7 61.0 55.9 63.1 62.2 59.2 67.0 74.5 59.4 56.7 1971< 27.4 38.1 57.8 29.9 38.7 20.9 37.0 32.8 41.2 24.0 30.7 73.8 37.3 22.9 27.9 29.9 33.7 39.5 35.8 36.4 29.7 27.7 25.0 26.7 35.6 28.7 41.0 30.3 30.0 39.1 23.1 38.9 19.3 33.2 38.5 23.9 38.8 35.7 27.2 39.3 37.3 36.5 29.7 26.8 43.0 52.0 35.9 34.8 42.7 28.6 36.9 127 'Bureau of the Census, Current PopulationReports,SerieBV-25, No. 488. "U S. Department of Commerce, Survey of Current Busmess, August, 1972. i-BureunotiheCensus,Governmental Finan-cesm 1970-71. < Bureau of the Census, Public Employment m 1971. "Totals do not include data for the Dis trict of Columbia. o ... Crti tarn ment Finances in 1972, U.S. Department of Commerce. Part V. 2. Table — State Revenue, by Type of Tax: 1972. StateTax Collections in 1972 Tablo3. State Tax Rci'cnuc. by Type of Tax: 1972 (Thousands of dollars) 128 State Number of States usinfftax All States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland 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 Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total 50 59,828,;!87 8I7,fi71 102,084 595,413 459,780 6,740,222 602,183 988,.5,39 256,733 1,996,,337 1,198,0,35 ,388,861 200,062 ,3,397,844 1,187,2,34 7,59,410 ,527,81,3 860,927 1,10,5,116 263,575 1,272,41,3 1,805,,3.35 ,3,032,665 1,,324,471 .588,2,36 1,047,247 182,817 ,319,480 180,863 1.39,175 1,626,285 ,3,56,37,3 7,020,209 1,460,869 157,807 2,189,41,3 645,460 .507,914 ,3,862,969 300,907 682,840 1,3,3,,347 887,4,50 2,,571,960 ,307,915 1,58,2.5,3 1,188,766 1,174 ,,568 ,529,,385 1,628,043 97,145 - Rcprc.srnt.s zcni or rounds to zero. X Not aiutiicnhic. ' Kstimotfd. -Ilopoalod. Source: State Tax Collections Sales and gross receipts (Table4) 50 ,33,2,34,516 56,3,596 2,3,405 ,361,9,50 297,.389 3,.362,272 .322,925 688,420 60,.5.34 1,.522,010 800,048 245,378 101,9.55 1,991,.57.3 771.4.52 .399,295 324,.547 ,549,610 557,,345 187,646 ,596,845 679,928 1,.56.5,319 580,668 4.50,644 60.3,007 62,0.36 212,.524 151,721 82,514 1,096,378 219,6.39 2,864,452 789.4.53 101,874 1,51,5,085 ,3.3,5,415 121,922 1,968,947 176,0.3,3 4,53,722 112„367 622,789 1,801,817 179,709 81,842 604 ,,541 927,408 ,386,4,55 692,88,3 65,229 CorpoIndi­ ration Licenses vidual net (Tables) income income 50 44 46 5,.S69,47.3 12,992,280 4,401,460 66,834 118,994 32,908 16,616 39,112 6,455 36,.592 94,577 28,126 45,937 70,1.50 31,.568 390,214 1,838,503 661,071 49,238 174,269 36,463 66,284 60,968 122,948 78,577 90,688 17,518 245,092 (x) 27,874 56,960 239,900 88,928 5,642 120,063 13,532 28,886 50,191 12,894 319,,591 843,251 173,912 81,665 283,669 10,526 99,254 202,158 37,109 .53,369 95,345 33,153 51,4.59 156,369 53,903 79,422 105,354 79,523 25,951 28,179 8,588 79,043 456,854 77,441 74,266 743,628 239,264 .347,273 726,287 267,303 95,095 483,215 112,403 .38,117 54,655 22,953 114,974 254,063 52,218 24,653 68,082 11,523 40,013 54,170 10,106 15,632 (X) (x) 22,255 6,618 16,340 2.50,419 23,258 119,528 26,842 44,088 13,211 .365,333 2,516,257 781,010 134,330 361,816 123,502 21,785 19,506 8,872 .336,334 111,269 134,698 90,689 97,759 28,014 78,818 251,226 40,606 480,643 730,641 481,600 20,4.55 66,416 28,619 .36,044 127,708 52,312 17,409 (x) •850 1.35,230 1.3,598 77,804 .357,262 (x) (x) 20,085 74,096 12,636 17,180 46,102 6,593 95,760 365,379 77,642 82,517 (x) (x) .35,950 89,152 10,608 101,.3.50 .594,697 116,805 16,134 (x) (X) Document Death and and Sever­ stock Property gift ance Poll transfer Other 43 49 28 5 26 11 1,2.56,796 1,291,524 757,598 3,932 505,267 15,541 25,355 3,509 3,04» (X) 3,432 (x) (x) 98 14,905 1,'493 (x) fx) 68,537 5,631 (X) (X) (*) (X) 1,078 1,332 4,973 (x) 1,138 6,215 264,695 221,205 2,262 (X) (X) (x) 2,328 15,885 561 (X) (x) 514 (x) 49,919 (X) (X) (x) fx) 339 4,397 (x) (X) 4,680 (x) 79,198 31,341 2,250 (x) 88,572 fx) 4,055 6,865 (X) (X) (X) 1,279 (x) 3,635 (X) (X) 611 (x) 810 5,174 152 (X) (x) fx) 2,777 63,534 (x) (X) 3,206 (x) 22,226 17,475 221 (X) (x) fx) 121 20,255 (X) (X) 1,218 fx) 11,330 9,382 687 (X) (x) (x) 28,477 14,054 5,941 (X) 1,114 (X) 29,117 9,899 244,456 (X) fx) fx) 5,819 7,390 (X) 2 (x) (x) 36,273 11,250 (X) (X) 11,692 3,015 273 61,245 (X) (X) 6,731 fx) 92,986 32,530 967 (x) fx) fx) 2,868 25,772 20,080 (x) 4,338 (x) 4,345 3,333 14,168 (x) (x) 21 3,818 19,167 (X) (X) (X) (x) 7,492 4,557 4,474 (X) (X) fx) 508 844 631 (X) 684 (x) 12,621 (x) 128 (X) 488 273 4,362 4,889 72 1,579 546 fx) 62,075 74,627 (x) (X) (x) (x) 15,030 1,685 35,878 (X) (x) (x) 14,738 177,286 (X) (X) 301,133 (x) 28,551 23,215 (x) (x) (X) 2 1,476 988 3,306 (X) (x) (x) 65,515 25,648 864 (X) (x) (x) (X) 18,725 73,342 (X) 1,516 fx) 50 12,911 2,381 (X) fx) (x) 35,672 124,394 (X) (X) 41,072 (X) (x) 8,984 (X) (X) 400 (x) 2,048 6,535 (X) (x) 4,471 fx) (X) 2,721 (X) (X) (x) (X) (x) 26,979 (x) (X) 8,386 2,664 61,589 39,308 311,979 (X) 5 (x) 14,634 2,817 3,938 (X) fx) (X) 316 3,703 (X) 855 1,662 (x) 14,392 16,156 551 23 14,104 238 132,350 30,357* (X) (x) 1,936 (x) 506 5,598 (X) (') 1,116 (x) 86,386 33,273 313 fx) 1,016 1,320 9,660 1,047 5,075 (X) (x) (x) in 1972, U.S. Department of Commerce. Part V. 3. Table — Expenditure by Type and Function: 1972. Individual States Table9. Expenditure by Type and Function: 1972-Continued. (Thousands of dollars) State All States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico NewYork North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Okleihoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming State institutions of higher education—Continued Current operation Capited outlay —Con. Other 9,088,263 160,700 34,481 130,997 69,858 893,258 194,128 112,572 39,958 208,071 197,082 87,771 38,768 409,217 310,205 151,877 126,543 178,803 153,966 41,668 159,576 173,598 532,536 300,627 83,205 187,959 40,564 83,684 32,350 39,302 207,043 90,617 502,213 238,395 41.049 414,654 121,803 132,864 297,944 45,533 87.050 37,963 159,345 450,003 109,083 36,388 210,675 286,644 76,736 342,806 26.131 Total 2,551,215 50,900 18.641 27,009 12,052 114,211 32,153 24,421 23,605 48,955 74,732 13,059 11,151 172,053 74,868 32,142 28,095 38,324 37,057 4,019 71,168 200,434 67,488 121,639 7,161 49,499 7,019 14,158 4,821 8,297 55,150 10,476 332,162 28,165 10,230 136,623 10,794 15,809 102,830 17,285 33,975 13,448 32,841 106,813 32,523 7,899 50,674 50,962 10,050 97,765 5,610 Construction only 2,051 41 14, 20, 10 75 19 14, 19, 37, 61 7, 8 146 51 28 20 32 27, 3 61 184 39 99, 3 41 5 10 4 7, 47, 9, 317, 20 8 109 4 10 81 16 26 12 26 71 26 5 38 37 6 73, 3, ,318 ,014 ,960 ,570 ,053 ,029 ,223 ,445 ,237 ,667 ,988 ,050 ,511 ,864 ,875 ,638 ,496 ,560 ,368 ,465 ,835 ,289 ,276 ,386 ,269 ,065 ,121 ,304 ,378 ,263 ,119 ,099 ,706 ,293 ,401 ,442 ,899 ,712 ,907 ,051 .151 ,119 ,166 ,920 ,034 ,690 ,646 ,932 ,297 ,868 ,667 Local schools Current Capital Total operation outlay 490,559 301,923 188,636 3, 4,023 3,774 249 54,504 33,185 21,319 Other education 18,396 18,380 16 6,216 6,218 8,875 8,875 22,477 19 22,458 189,227 164,265 24,962 16,481 16,481 2,876 2,876 7,230 7,230 1,676 1,569 107 3,369 3,369 2,948 2,948 10,914 6,244 4,670 3,700 3,700 73,344 73,344 19,299 15,272 4,027 23,999 23,999 21.003 21,003 Total ,281,546 71,468 13,682 23,796 30,380 147,623 37,978 56,837 19,005 81,461 54,162 10,042 14,943 170,956 82,821 40,262 18,375 50,310 38,796 17,954 80,555 73,879 152,938 37,437 33,278 33,515 13,724 16,950 5,492 10,370 136,627 15,720 521,450 58,579 12,505 83,334 39,488 30,051 461,843 21,124 64,746 6,522 52,524 85,538 14,985 19,140 85,155 27,544 23,840 77,100 4.740 Assistance Current Capital and operation outlay subsidies 1,918,954 61,894 : 11,875 15,014 26.583 70,118 21j506 32,426 16.584 62,055 43,804 7,273 11,804 90,181 51,358 22,926 12,378 37,304 28,790 13,938 56,524 60,124 105,157 21,924 21,437 29,033 9,974 12,425 4,048 8,120 97,775 10,288 186,154 36,314 9,039 66,704 30,544 20,424 144,000 13,535 56,735 4,406 39,382 66,039 8,616 5,380 69,802 18,159 18,270 48,400 2,411 329,616 1,484 59 817 1,137 416 612 14,949 396 4,624 2,493 1,264 840 1,269 914 1,009 515 5,747 2,512 2,415 7,935 589 860 288 4,001 297 415 848 51 50 7,020 616 146,789 7,641 140 52 1,988 296 78,574 3,219 4,177 620 3,461 2,046 373 8,198 2,292 351 1,957 973 27 1,032,976 8,090 1,748 7,965 2,660 77,089 15,860 9,462 2,025 14,782 7,865 1,505 2,299 79,506 30,549 16,327 5,482 7,259 7,496 1,601 16,096 13,166 46,921 15,225 7,840 4,185 3,335 3,677 1,393 2,200 31,832 4,816 188,507 14,624 3,326 16,578 6,956 9,331 239,269 4,370 3,834 1,496 9,681 17,453 5,996 5,562 13,061 9,034 3,613 27,727 2,302 129 Represents zero or rounds to zero. « «. . e. in 7079 TT S DenartmentofCommerce. Part V. 4. Table — Relation of Selected Financial Items to Personal Income; 1972. Derived Comparative Statistics Table6. Relation of Selected Financial Items to Personal Income: 1972 130 General revenue per $1,000 of personal income Taxes State Total 50-State Average 115.67 Median State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland 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 Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 126.42 141.34 273.15 129.36 135.22 123.29 121.20 96.75 151.87 103.60 120.46 180.39 141.66 101.19 91.55 110.11 94.52 138.02 164.73 147.00 107.27 110.99 117.64 138.41 170.53 92.65 150.52 95.33 118.80 94.23 82.35 200.15 121.70 128.47 152.49 79.02 138.88 117.58 113.75 124.38 133.71 130.30 114.54 102.80 161.39 185.55 107.12 135.69 162.28 137.07 175.29 Total 70.22 72.53 75.96 66.94 81.71 76.57 71.61 63.68 64.52 98.37 72.07 71.37 105.27 79.67 63.63 56.21 68.49 55.79 79.49 92.02 80.93 70.23 68.70 76.85 85.10 93.77 56.51 71.00 52.57 73.52 48.38 46.27 103.36 76.50 82.72 71.02 48.83 71.05 59.97 78.28 76.04 82.54 57.45 67.32 60.40 81.72 95.91 64.61 82.59 91.45 93.05 72.99 General sales or gross receipts 20.66 121.01 23.95 30.75 24.09 21.31 19.86 23.41 31.72 25.35 50.45 20.59 20.69 20.70 19.73 18.98 29.37 23.13 30.06 16.11 7.62 24.79 17.36 44.93 19.77 16.45 24.39 16.49 39.54 16.71 18.43 27.44 16.59 12.38 19.84 23.02 29.67 26.17 26.89 19.43 31.24 13.07 14.10 42.77 38.76 21.91 28.22 Individual income 15.24 '14.37 11.05 25.65 12.98 11.68 19.53 18.43 3.98 34.75 14.29 32.50 19.99 15.79 13.43 18.23 10.08 14.44 8.77 8.25 25.21 28.29 18.29 31.05 8.71 13.82 26.44 8.91 2.30 0.66 12.79 27.41 20.49 8.78 2.48 10.70 29.66 14.81 16.78 15.43 1.03 19.66 27.94 19.86 15.40 33.99 Revenue from Federal Government 31.42 33.63 48.69 110.15 30.40 47.67 38.61 37.74 20.77 30.62 22.53 38.08 45.84 46.40 30.14 20.18 24.91 24.80 40.97 43.43 47.23 21.62 29.11 26.56 33.00 59.88 28.30 60.05 25.13 32.67 26.87 22.84 62.96 32.47 31.55 45.44 19.16 44.46 39.95 24.47 33.14 34.13 43.61 34.32 29.58 55.58 60.61 26.16 34.51 57.75 27.56 69.69 General expenditure per $1,000 of personal income Education Charges and miscellaneous 12.64 14.83 15.54 95.96 16.45 10.95 9.94 19.65 11.28 22.78 8.37 10.66 27.80 14.86 7.10 14.75 13.12 13.16 16.95 28.03 17.63 14.11 8.98 12.79 18.12 16.26 7.62 17.46 14.72 11.13 16.54 11.86 33.03 10.70 13.64 32.82 10.56 22.56 17.53 9.60 14.81 15.65 28.61 11.19 12.52 23.38 28.22 15.15 18.06 12.98 14.37 29.79 Total 115.88 126.10 139.57 377.18 129.84 124.44 117.53 119.86 101.76 157.43 98.69 116.21 207.13 139.26 95.54 89.18 115.04 94.22 145.56 163.15 143.16 116.25 112.20 113.73 139.59 168.35 90.46 143.95 91.88 117.90 108.14 85.32 184.36 134.65 123.97 148.32 78.54 137.18 127.76 115.92 122.72 129.76 130.31 109.77 97.22 163.46 196.35 104.42 134.19 168.37 135.28 176.17 State instiTotal tutions ofhigher education 44.97 15.69 50.24 63.22 136.54 62.56 49.99 35.35 51.85 33.84 76.69 62.55 52.71 29.96 48.33 43.48 59.88 51.18 44.20 46.26 86.55 18.99 22.98 37.15 25.67 17.35 11.60 27.95 10.18 27.28 46.13 10.87 50.48 18.11 83.07 29.13 54.16 23.78 36.25 43.39 47.32 37.86 12.73 21.42 18.77 19.13 57.05 22.40 64.25 19.58 46.41 43.63 33.41 45.97 16.72 14.31 15.51 17.93 62.45 30.41 66.19 18.92 38.64 51.68 33.67 48.26 29.35 26.17 14.38 23.05 19.06 15.98 19.86 8.06 89.63 34.26 47.54 9.60 18.50 28.88 14.54 52.40 21.66 43.79 20.24 9.21 18.04 17.51 32.72 17.26 15.60 42.59 70.75 31.60 45.46 16.55 59.00 26.11 57.18 18.39 52.22 61.55 28.35 27.99 Intergovernmental 24.86 24.89 33.23 54.68 33.63 27.59 21.98 19.88 19.96 39.75 31.99 27.81 24.45 20.01 18.05 24.91 16.79 29.74 40.83 23.94 24.88 15.08 24.20 29.63 41.43 22.46 23.31 11.81 30.07 5.88 14.22 49.96 32.25 40.11 18.21 13.56 26.02 20.01 28.28 20.10 32.21 15.65 22.95 28.09 39.99 27.55 24.28 29.48 34.67 19.46 30.00 „. , Public High- welways fare 18.04 21.45 24.88 74.92 22.95 26.26 13.70 21.46 14.38 21.45 19.40 17.00 16.41 31.37 16.98 17.88 29.08 19.54 37.19 27.77 29.62 17.13 8.96 15.00 19.73 33.13 17.32 45.50 20.53 26.54 25.81 13.01 33.45 10.08 20.97 34.62 15.75 22.50 28.22 17.97 9.21 20.14 32.15 22.98 18.38 30.89 39.77 20.87 23.95 64.60 14.41 56.62 22.51 18.21 23.70 22.10 9.68 23.57 35.51 23.96 17.52 17.95 11.11 23.47 24.53 15.83 23.18 10.15 13.50 15.25 20.52 25.48 26.98 18.14 35.35 25.73 18.52 29.53 17.52 15.54 14.17 10.34 14.50 19.42 22.85 30.99 13.86 16.09 13.66 33.25 17.06 21.43 32.01 11.17 16.84 17.12 17.03 18.37 32.36 13.09 22.36 18.08 18.28 10.46 Note: State financial amounts for fiscal 1972 are related herein to personal income data as estimated for calendar 1971 (see table 20) -Represents zero or rounds to zero. 'Medians based on those States having the specified items are: General sales or gross receipts taxes, $23.02; and individual income taxes $15 42 Source: State Government Finances in 1972, U.S. Department of Commerce. PART VI. BUDGET PROJECTIONS. Part VI. Budget Projections. Budget Proj actions. (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 costs for the planning year and the first year of operation for a Law School for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, requires certain 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 University 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. 133 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 fiilly "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 he 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. (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 Part VI. Budget Projections, (Continued). 134 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 he 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 Operation. Those apparent economies will fade, however, as personnel and program catch up to the planned scope of activity. Part VI. Budget Projections, (Continued). (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 ahove 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 N e vada should be competitive with the good Law Schools of the Region. (The figures are offered in terms of1974-75 dollars.) (1) Administration — Dean's Office Salaries Dean Associate Dean $ 27,000 - $ 30,000 Secretary $ 8,000 (Administrative Assistant) Clerical Assistant (Wages) $ 6,500 $ 36,000 - $ 40,000 Total $ 77,500 - $ 84,500 (2) Law Library — Salaries and Wages Salaries Librarian $ 23,000 - $ 28,000 Assistant Librarian $ 14,000 - $ 17,000 Cataloguer $ 12,000 Secretary $ 6,000 Part-time Help (Wages) $ 5,000 Total $ 60,000 - $ 68,600 Part VI. Budget Projections, (Continued). 136 (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 $ 2.500 Total $ 26,000 Planning Year Total Planning Activity $179,100 Law Library Capital $100.000* Total $279,100 * Plus $150,000 from private funds given for Law Library development. Part VI. Budget Projections, (Continued). (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 ^ 9,000 Total 137 $121,500 (2) Instruction Salaries Faculty (4) $100,000 Faculty Secretary (1) $ 6,000 Operations (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) $ 35,000 Capital equipment for instruction (typewriters, desks, equipment for reproduction of course materials) $ 5,000 Total $146,000 Part VI. Budget Projections, (Continued), (3) Law Library — Operating Costs Salaries Librarian $ 29,000 Assistant Librarian $ 17,000 Cataloguer $ 14,000 Reference Librarian $ 12,000 Secretary $ 7,000 Part-Time Personnel $ 6.000 Total $ 85,000 The total first-year operating budget (excluding capital for Law Library and Law Building) $352,500 Law Library Capital $100,000* 138 ^ First-Year Operation Total Budget $452,500 * Plus $150,000 from private funds given for Law Library development. Part VI. Budget Projections, (Continued). The La'w 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 minimum. This position of requiring more from newlyorganized 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 50,000 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 goal would be to achieve a collection of 100,000 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 139 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 requirements 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 Part VI. Budget Projections, (Continued). residence. There 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. The Law Review should then be in full operation. At that 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-student 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 cost 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 140 operating budget. Projecting that figure ahead five years will provide an estimate for the then to be 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: (1) Temporary Accommodation. In the first year or two of the life of a new Law School, it is assumed that the school will he 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: Classroom (1) 1500 sq.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. Part VI. Budget Projections, (Continued). 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 that the functions enumerated have their space and that the space be reasonably comfortable and usable. 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 of60,000-80,000 gross square feet will be required. .J 141 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 huilt 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. Part VI. Budget Projections, (Continued). Summary of Budgetary Projections for Law School 142 For Pre-planning Year (1974-75): Planning Year (1975-76): Operations $179,100 Library Capital 100,000* $ 50,000 Planning Year $279,100 First Year of Operation (1976-1977): Operations $352,500 Library Capital 100,000* First Operational Year $452,500 *Plus $150,000 each for two years from private funds given for Law Library development. Note: As explained in the text, the actual expenditures are likely to be substantially below the budgeted amounts, because recruitment of personnel and expenditure of capital for the Law Library can be expected to lag behind the projections. No allowance is made in these projections for the total cost of physical facilities or such costs as building maintenance and depreciation, nor for any share of Central University Administration overhead costs. No inflation factor has been built into the figures. Finally, actual expenditures will almost surely vary from the categories described in these 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. Part VII. STATEMENTS. PartVIL Statements. In this section of the Appendix are offered statements secured from a number of individuals from smaller states with university law schools, commenting on the role of the law school in the university and in the State. The extracts from letters on file with the authors of this study are reproduced with the permission of the writers. Part VII. Statements. July 5,1974 Dean Willard H. Pedrick College of Law Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona 85281 Dear Dean Pedrick: I have been asked to state my opinion as to the contribution a law school can make to a state. We are proud of our two law schools in the state of Arizona and believe that they make a great contribution to the continuing education of not only the students but of the entire bar. In the past, our court has attempted to assist in the educational process by annually 147 holding oral arguments at each of the law schools. At times we have called upon members of the faculty or the deans of our law schools to assist us in writing new rules, making studies, and in preparing necessary legislation for the judiciary. It is my opinion that a law school can make a great contribution to the quality of legal services provided for the citizens of a state. Very truly yours, /s/Jack D.H.Hays Chief Justice JDHHmr Part VII. Statements, (Continued). July 9,1974 Dean Willard H. Pedrick College of Law Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona 85281 Dear Dean Pedrick: I am very pleased that your services are being made available to the Study for the University of Nevada, Las V egas, on the desirability of a law school for Nevada. Your invitation to comment on the value and importance of a law school, based on my present post and past experience, is most appreciated, and I respond with enthusiasm. I am somewhat familiar with the State of Nevada and its educational concerns, including those of the Las Vegas campus, from my association with the University of Nevada Survey undertaken by the Nevada Legislative Council in 1958. The growth 148 development of the state since that time has exceeded the expectations of those of us involved in the survey team at that time. I can, therefore, with full sincerity state my personal opinion that the establishment of a law school in the State of Nevada will add greatly to the general tone, well-being, and processes, not only of the University of Nevada at Las V egas, but the entire University of Nevada System, and the State itself. My reasons are fairly simple. But I think they are important considerations which policy makers might well consider. First of all I would say that with the growth of the Las Vegas area and the Nevada System generally, the internal processes of the faculty as a whole, of the faculties of schools, departments, and subdivisions of the University, will be greatly benefited by the addition of a law school. This results not only from the presence of law professors on many significant university committees, but from the widespread, indirect effects on the work of all faculties generally. There is a methodology, based on skillful use of language, respectful of facts, of human configurations and social processes, that is peculiar to the study of law. The prestige attaching to law, constitutionalism, and legal processes generally in American life, adds significant and valuable flavor to these influences when a law school is visible and its influences present on a campus. The same indirect effects can be seen in student life. The campus newspaper, student affairs generally, the use of iche library, all receive significant and important side effects from the presence of law professors, the law library, and law students. It would be my opinion that Nevada has arrived at the point where it can well afford to establish a law school. Furthermore, it would be my considered opinion as a Part VII. Statements, (Continued). state higher education executive officer, that the amount of investment required would be well sustained by the taxpayers. The benefits deriving from tax investment in a state university law school are probably greater than from any comparable sum invested in any other department. A state can gain a first-rate law school for a much smaller investment than for a medical school, for an engineering school, or for nearly any other professional school, whereas, returns from this modest investment are multiplied many times in the campus and for the benefit of the state. This is not to say that the refinement of legal problems, the intervention of some members of the profession into areas heretofore exempt or beyond the influence of litigation, comes as a benefit in the minds of all. Notwithstanding, the advantages far outweigh any such disadvantages, imaginary or real. From the standpoint of law enforcement, police administration, the protection of the rights of individuals, the work of the state legislature, the judiciary, the production of policy studies of value to public officials generally, a law school is, beyond doubt, a first-class investment. The decision, of course, is one which can be made only by the responsible officials 149 of the State of Nevada. But I appreciate the privilege, as an outsider, of offering these views. Sincerely yours, /s/G. Homer Durham Commissioner of Higher Education GHD:jbf Part VII. Statements, (Continued). Response to Letters to University Presidents, State Bar Association Presidents and State Chief Justices. Excerpts from letters: Law Schools are not notoriously expensive and they do add to the reputation of a university if the law school has a good faculty, a good law library and has attracted good students. In today's society, the activities of law professors and law students are fairly well publicized. However, law students seldom express their political and economic views in the same manner as many undergraduate and graduate students. Therefore, the presence of the law school can have a stabilizing effect on the student body and often helps promote the image of the university in the eyes of the general public. Richard L. Bowen President University of South Dakota The school has involved itself heavily in assistance to the executive branch of the state along with the Legislature. It has participated heavily in developing proposed legislation pertaining to law practice in the state and in fostering uniform state laws as these are presented to the State Legislature. Robert T. Pantzer President University of Montana The participation of the law school faculty in the committee work of the campus and in the general affairs of the University also lends a great deal of skill and professional training in areas that are most helpful to the governance of the institution. The fact that the Law School does exist attracts a great many well qualified students to our campus since they prefer to take their undergraduate work at an institution where they will continue with their professional studies. Thomas J. Clifford President University of North Dakota Part VII. Statements, (Continued). We do take notice that our Law School has prepared lawyers intending to practice in Maine with a more specific knowledge of Maine law and the problems to be encountered in Maine practice. Furthermore, our Law School has asserted a dynamic role in the State, serving its interests on numerous occasions. I may add that the Bench and Bar are very pleased with our present University of Maine Law School. Armand A. Dufresne, Jr. Chief Justice Supreme J udicial Court of Maine It took years of mostly talk to get a Law College established in connection with our University. While it was slow getting off the ground our Law College has moved steadily along and with very modest facilities for several years. The Law College soon showed its real wealth to the University and the State until we now have one of the finest plants to he found anywhere particularly in a State the size of New Mexico, about 1,000,000 people. J. D. Compton Chief Justice 151 Supreme Court of New Mexico No other college has had so broadening an influence in the State of North Dakota as that of the Law School. I cannot too strongly emphasize the importance of the Law School in the progress of North Dakota. Alvin C. Strutz Chief Justice Supreme Court of North Dakota It is somewhat difficult to measure all of the benefits that are derived from a law school as one is first tempted to merely examine the benefits of providing trained professionals as attorneys, judges and other officers within the state. However, there are many other less evident benefits from a law school within the state such as providing an excellent environment for residents of the state, as well as others, to relate to one another in a vitally important discipline of our complex society. It has been my experience that the graduate of a law school has the added benefits of having a personal awareness of local problems of the state with a great ability to identify with them and work out appropriate and viable solutions. Henry F. McQuade Chief Justice Supreme Court of Idaho Part VII. Statements, (Continued). It is my opinion that the College of Law not only enhances the prestige of the University, but also provides services of substantial value, both to the legal profession and the state, that would otherwise not be available. William D. Carlson President University of Wyoming Without this school, the only law school in the State, many New Mexicans who now study law would not be able to do so, because they could not afford to go elsewhere and pay high out-of-state tuition. We feel also that many American Indians both from this state and other states would not be able to get a legal education without our unique American Indian Law Program. Finally, the Law School faculty serves consultative functions and the Law Library provides reference services which are very valuable to the state. Ferrel Heady President University of New Mexico The research which the law faculty conducts is by and large not primarily concerned with forensics alone. This being the case we find that the research of the law faculty in such areas as water law, land law, federal regulations concerning grazing, mineral rights, and many other areas all relate directly to the interests of other segments of our faculty. As a result, we have a stronger water resources institute, a stronger College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Management and a stronger College of Mines because of the involvement of law faculty members in research projects in these Colleges. Their inputs help very definitely to keep the research and the teaching far more dynamic in these areas than would otherwise likely prevail. Ernest W. Hartung President University of Idaho It has been my experience, as a practicing attorney, a member of the Board of Regents for the tax supported colleges and universities of the state and as President of the State Bar that the law school makes a substantial contribution not only to the Bar of the legal system of the state but to the university itself. It is my opinion that it adds a Part VII. Statements, (Continued). certain amount of maturity to an educational institution and in South Dakota there is a very close relationship between the Bar and the college of law. Lem Overpeck President South Dakota Bar Association In many of our Bar Association activities, we draw heavily upon the faculty and students of the Law School for compilations of material and other research activities. The most recent activities of the Bar Association in using the manpower and talent available in the student body and faculty, were in areas of attempted reform and modernization of our judicial system, and succeeded in part in that we did secure a court administrator with at least some semblance of authority. Patrick A. Conmy Immediate Past President State Bar Association of North Dakota 153 I further believe that before the law school was here there was no great need for it and I believe that by having a law school here that it creates an interest in the law school from some boys and girls who would not ordinarily go to law school. I believe that this will create more lawyers than needed to serve the people within the State. If there are more lawyers than required, then some of the attorneys are apt to become unscrupulous. Name Withheld by Request Extract from Statement supplied by Prof. Gerard J. Mangone, International Law and Organization, College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, November 9, 1972, in connection with the University of Delaware Law School Study: The motivations for establishing at the University a College of Law of high quality in the State of Delaware are well known to you: the unprecedented demand for admission to law schools throughout the country and the need to provide an equal opportunity for the young men and women of this state for legal training hardly needs emphasis. But I would particularly urge the need for legal education on the campus of a university not only for students intending to practice law, but also for its influence on the whole curriculum of sciences, social sciences and humanities. The presence of a law school faculty and student body permeates the academic atmosphere of a great Part VII. Statements, (Continued). university. It allows for interdisciplinary research in teaching that gives a legal perspective to a curriculum; it strengthens the entire student hody with men and women beginning to fix their careers upon jurisprudence; it enlarges and enriches the library with many materials that interface with other academic disciplines and contemporary social problems. 154