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

•» LAW SCHOOL STUDY FOR THE UNIVERSITY OE 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 JULY,1974 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 JULY, 1974 T A B L E O F C 0 N T E N T S Law School Study; Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations Page Introductory Note — Scope of Study 5 Chapter I — Nevada: Population, Economy, University g 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? 27 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? 54 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? gQ 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? 70 Chapter VI — Recommendations and Conclusion 75 Part I Principal sources used in text. Part II National data relative to law students and lawyers. Part III — Nevada data relative to law students and lawyers. Part IV '— Extracts from Nevada's economic prospects. Part V — Nevada comparative financial data relevant to law school costs. Part VI — Budget projections. Part VII —- Statements. LAW SCHOOL STUDY: SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Nevada's population will grow at a spectacular rate in the years aliead. 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 firstyear 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 law-trained 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 studying 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 non-residents 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 foreseeable future 2 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 niomber of applicants. The bulk of the students would be from Nevada, though some out-ofstate 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 skilis. 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 on a per-capita basis 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. 3 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 law-trained 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 noM. 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 Ari^ona State University to prepare a Study on the feasibility of a Law School at the University — assigning, to assist Dean Pedrick, Prof. Lome Seidman of the College of Business and Economics 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 5 within the State of Nevadar talking ihto acconnt 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, Prof. 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 resolved 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. 6 larger legal aid pi^ograms, and the lihe. 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 College for the State Judiciary, already overflowing its relatively new building on the Reno campus, offers great promise as respects intern placement for several thirdyear law students, as do agencies of state government located in Reno. But, to serve the broad interests of the State of Nevada best, the Las Vegas location for a Law School is the appropriate choice. The present Study is composed of three parts -— like all of Gual. 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 benefitted 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), Prof, of History, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada 89154 Dr. Brock Dixon, Dean of Administration, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada 89154 Dr. Don W. Driggs, Prof, 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 York 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 Prof. Lome H. Seidman, chairman of the Finance Department \/ University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada. Mr. E. Parry Thomas, President, Valley Bank of Nevada, Post Office^ Box 15427, Las Vegas, Nevada Mrs. Mary L. Woitishek, 920 Rancho Circle, Las Vegas, Nevada Justice David Zenoff, Supreme Court Building, Carson City, Nevada 8 y CHAPTER I. 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 Coxinties) , 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 POPULATION Population - First Year of Decade 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 77,407 91,058 110,242 160,083 285,278 448,738 9 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 1960-1970 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. 10 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 niomber 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 Vegas 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 11 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 POPULATION FOR NEVADA Projected Year Population 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 12 adding one jtiillion jtiore people. As discussed previously, an increasing percentage of these new Nevadans will be born 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 9^^zing. 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" Fast Growth Clark County Washoe County Carson City Douglas County Moderate Growth Slow Growth Elko County Pershing County Lyon County Lander County 13 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 resi dents, 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: 14 POPULATION GROWTH PATTERNS A Nevada Clark Cy. % 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, Carson City and Donglas 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 well-educated 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. 15 Support actiyity growth, is anticipated even in the absence of resort indnstry 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 SUPPORT CATEGORY EMPLOYMENTS, UNITED STATES AND LAS VEGAS Total Nonagric. Per Cent Employed In (000) Retail FIRE(a) Service Gov't. U.S. 11.2% 1960 54,234 15.5% 4.9% 1.6% 11.2% 1965 60,815 15.5 5.0 1.6 12.7 1970 70,664 15.7 5.2 1.4 14.0 Jan. 1974 Total % in Specified 33.2% 34.7 36.3 37.5(b) Las Vegas „ IgFO 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 RATIO OF LV TO U.S. PERCENTAGES EMPLOYMENTS IN ABOVE SUPPORT CATEGORIES LV U.S. LV:U.S. I960 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. 16 Historically, Nevada experienced the greatest percentage of personal income growth of all States dnring 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 Metro. Areas Las Vegas, Nevada 11.9% per year Anaheim-Santa Ana, CA 12.0 Oxnard-Ventura, CA 9.1 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 12.5 San Jose, CA 10.3 NOTES, TABLE 2 (*) 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 3-1/2 times more rapidly than U.S. employment from the beginning of 1970 to the end of 1973. Las Vegas employment increased 2-3/4 times more rapidly than the national employment growth rate, while employment in the rest of Nevada (excluding Las Vegas) increased 4-1/2 times more rapidly than the national growth rate. 17 The ^iye- and ten-yeai: forecasta of econojtiic 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 2. McCarran Airport Traffic 3. Auto Traffic on 1-15 (LA-LV) 4. Total Auto Traffic into L.V. 5. Las Vegas Resort Rooms 6. L.V. Convention Attendance 7. L.V. Real Gross Gaming Rev.^ 8. L.V. Real Bank Deposits^ 9. Nevada Real Transaction Tax Coll. 10. Reno Resort Employment 11. Auto Traffic on 1-80 (CA-Reno) (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. a,b 39% 89% 55 114 11 13 15 26 30 61 45 67 67 183 36 71 20 33 36 85 4 -11 18 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 ATTRIBUTED TO SPECIFIC AREAS OF PRACTICE Washoe County and Carson City Gross Clark County Gross Family Law Real Estate Transaction Probate Personal Property and Time Income 10.1 9.9 11.8 11.8 9.3 9.0 Time Income ~5TT §75" 7.7 7.7 3.2 3.0 Property Damage 20.6 20.1 19.5 19.3 19 General Corporate Problems 11.3 11.3 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 & Federal) .OO IAC T A Administrative Proceedings 14.0 13.8 14.6 14.J Naturally, this table is 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 3l $15,000-$25,000 112 $25,000-$50,000 • 117 $50,000-$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 20 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 from 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. 21 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. 22 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; but, 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. 23 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 of 27,158. 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 extraordinary growth in terms of student enrollment, size and quality of 24 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 overwhelcomposed of Nevada residents, with only ten per cent coming from out of state, and these students are educated by 250 fulltime 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 degree-granting status. By 1973, there were 63 degreegranting programs. The orderly and rational expansion of these programs is the result of planning, and the University of Nevada, 25 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. 26 CHAPTER II. IS THERE A NEED FOR A NEVADA LAW SCHOOL? 1. Is there a need from the standpoint of Nevada students? To gain th.e 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 firstyear places. There has been, over the past 14 years, an astonishing and massive increase in the numbers taking the Law School Admission Test, the numbers applying 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 Prof. Vaughn Ball, now at the University of Georgia School of Law, Consultant to the Law School Admission Test Council and the 27 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.) 28 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. Prof. 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 ABA-approved 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 applicemts 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 pleuis, 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 current 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 29 1973-74, an estimated 110,000 actually registered with the Law School Data Assembly Service to facilitate supplying 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 Raushenbush's comment regarding the 1972-73 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 Admission Test evidenced, in 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 go 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. 30 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 mid60s, there were only a few hundred minority group law students (Blacks, American Indians, Chicanes, 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 31 of dissatisfaction with the organization of society in a nxamber 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 niamber 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 entvsring in the Fall of 1973. For that entering class, the number of male, firstyear 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 most dramatic change in career aspirations as respects law study on the part of women. 32 A 197 3 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 first-year 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 33 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 nxamber of those interested in pursuing law study. But it must be emphasized that there could even be a substantial reduction in the overall numbers 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 nximber 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 — notcdjly population growth and increased awareness on the part of women and minority groups, seem to make it clear that very 34 m • 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. 35 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-yearold population. In light of the fact that Nevada, in 1972-73, had approximately 8000 22-year-olds, that population base should have resulted in about 90 Nevadans enrolled as first-year law students in law schools somewhere in the United States. Two or three times that number 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 36 young people who might otherwise be stimulated 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, from 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 nonresident 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 CPA 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 vould attend one in Nevada. But 74 said that they would not be able to go out of state to attend law school. 37 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 publiclyfinanced law schools. Restrictive quotas for non-residents range from 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 38 credentials are either not securing admission to law school or cannot affora tne cost of out-of-state legal education, has a 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 that 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 that young Nevadans are a good sample, a very fair sample, of the young people in the Nation, with 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. 39 especially, on tlie less affluent and disadvantaged. That so traditional an avenue to a professional career, and to public service, is not as open in Nevada, as in 45 other states, must be distressing. 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 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 355,242 lawyers in the whole United States. Though that number has been supplemented by graduates of 40 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 lawtrained persons.) The pessimistic view as respects placement of current law graduates has been expounded publicly in a nxamber 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 nvombers 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 demonstrable need or where the effect is to siphon 41 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 Journal 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 that lawyers will be adequately compensated for meeting these needs. Hence, up to half of the graduates 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 LawTrained 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." 42 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 1974-1975, 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 well-known 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 mid-1980s, 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 43 middle-class incomes, and surely most of those with less than middleclass incomes, simply live without benefitting from the advice and counsel to be supplied by a well-trained 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 bit, 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 and in California, the general impression is that some law graduates are waiting longer than they would like to secure law-related employ ment. 44 But, ttie state of tlie ma,rket 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 1930s would have yielded a convincing negative response, but 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 be relatively unselective schools, and they will probably experience the most rapid growth 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 45 a faster rate in. th.e next deca • ! • I ; i M I I j ( j i I 1 . ; . . , 1 i 1 , , I 1 I i > I I I . I i : i ' i I 1 I I ;5fsii. i I I ^ I i I f t ? ! 1 , I I SOURCE: Educational Testing Service (1973) APPENDIX PART II. NATIONAL DATA RELATIW TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS 2. Law School Admission Test Council Chart From the Law School Admission Test with added data. Number of Enrolled FirstYear Year Law Students Council, Annual Report for 1973 at p. 92, Number of Law Degrees Conferred Number of Number of LSDAS LSAT Candidates 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* (Continuation of information on previous page) 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. APPENDIX PART II. NATIONAL DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS 3. Legal Education and Bar Admission Statistics — 1963-1973 LEGAL EDUCATION AND BAR ADMISSION STATISTICS 1963-1973 New Enrollment First LSAT J.D. or I.L.B. A dmissions Year Total Women Year Candidates A warded 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 1 1,507 13,109 1966 62,556 2,678 24.077 44,905 13,1 15 14,644 1967 64,406 2,906 lA.ltl 47,1 10 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 1 19.694 22,342 25,086 1973 106,102 16,760 37,018 121,262 27,756 30,075* NOTES: Enrollment is ilial in American Bar Association approved school as of October I The I ,SAT candidate volume is given for the test year ending in the year stated. T hus. 121,262 administrations of the LSAT occurred m the test year July. 1972. through April. 197 V J.D. or LI..B. degrees are those awarded by approved schools for the academic year ending in the year stated. Thus. 27.7.S6 degrees were awarded m 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 e.xamination 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. APPENDIX PART II. 4. Projection of NATIONAL DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS law school graduates. Mid Los% IV57 200,000 16.083 e.o 8.651 53.8 16,088 8.0 8,653 53 8 I95B 219,000 16,651 7 6 9.261 55.6 16,651 76 9,261 55.6 1959 230,000 16 66/ 7 2 9,434 56 6 16.667 7 2 9,434 56 6 I960 230.000 17,030 7.4 9,948 58 4 17,030 7.4 9,948 58^ 1961 230.000 17,886 7 « 10,828 60 5 17.866 7.8 iO,828 60,5 1967 1963 236.000 247,000 20.012 22,933 8 5 9 3 1 1,792" 13 600 58.9 59 3" 20,012 22,933 8 5 9 3 Ujll U.600 58_6__ 59 5 ~ for 'Sow»6 15.63 DELAWARE 548,000 736 745 47 48 .27 .31 7.03 19.96 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 757,000 16,112 47 41 6 ,37 4.54 6.31 11.46 FLORIDA 6,789,000 11,510 590 9 11 3,34 3.24 14.21 20 53 GEORGIA 4,690,000 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 713,00 848 841 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 n 18 2,56 1.63 5.61 T0,B8 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 5.93 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 3.86 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 *S4* Notti 3 and 4 on page 6. Source: 1971 Lawyer Statistical Report, American Bar Foundation, p. 26. APPENDIX PART II. NATIONAL DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS 9. Population per lawyer in private practice — smaller states. POPUIATION PER LAWYER IN PRIVATE PRACTICE Smaller States Population per lawyer in Rank in availability of legal services Utah 1,088 29 New Mexico 1,181 36 Maine 1,193 37 Rhode Island 906 14 Hawaii 1,220 40 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 aska 965 20 Computed from; 1971 Lawyer Statistical Report, American Bar Foundation. APPENDIX PART II. NATIONAL DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS 10. Ratio of lawyers to Gross National Product, 1950-80. 11. Increasing proportion of personal income in the United States going for legal services, 1950-71. RATIO OF LAWYERS TO GROSS NATICWAI. PRODUCT, 1950-80^ GNP in Year Billions Lawyers per Billion Dollars of GNP Institutional Law Student Capacity Demand Pro lection Proiection 1950 $ 372 551 1960 515 485 1963 581 457 1970 793 400 403 1975 981 382 402 1980 1,199 381 411 (CNF 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. INCREASING PROPORTION OF PERSONAL INCOME THE UNITED STATES GOING FOR LEGAL SERVICES, 1950- Year U.S. Personal Income (Billions) Personal Income for Legal Services (Billions) 1950 1955 1960 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 227 .6 2.9 310.9 5.9 410.0 10.4 538.9 22.1 587.2 26.1 629.4 30.2 687.9 35.8 750.3 803.6 857 Per Cent for Legal Services 1.3 1.9 2.6 4.1 4.5 4.8 5.2 5.6 6.2 N. A. Source: Pennsylvania Study (1971), p. H- APPENDIX PART II. NATIONAL DATA 12. Extract from Cantor and Rose 19 Practical Lawyer, 63, 64 TABLE 1 COMPENSATION TO LAW SCHOOL GRADUATES OFFERED BY PRIVATE FIRMS RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS , The Escalation in Salaries of Law School Graduates, (1973). Cleveland State 1972 1973 Lowest $ 8,000 8,500 Median SI 2,000 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. of Minnesota 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 Faclor.i Affecting Conipenxntion While acndcmic standing has a substantial effect on the salary a graduating student could expect, a number of placement officers indicated that other factors were also influencial. 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 seif image, especially if it sees itself as competitive with the big prestige firms in that particular city." 0 General Experience—"Compensation is intluenced greatly by the area of employment, coupled with r'nc graduate's experience over and above his legal education. For example, our top salaries were offered by \Va>;hington. D.C. lirms .-iCeking high ranking, mature students with prior experience in the military or in government." TABLC 2 COMPENSATION TO LAW SC HOOL GUAIN xris OFFERED BY CORPOKA MOSS ' Naid ol Governors with that eommittee ajipointed iyv the Governor to carry out the intent and effect of Nevada Assembly ConciiiTent Resolution No. 4S. Since theie is widespread misunderstanding ;is to what was done in AssembK' Concuiient Re.solution No. 48. it was the feeling of the chairman of your committee that this resolution should be set out in lull and it heiewith lollows: Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 48 — Messrs. Scholicld. Lowman. McNeel, Bremner, Hicke\', May, Dini. Baiengo. Glover, Smalley, Crawloid. Howard, Demers, Haves, Ullom, Craddock, Broadbent, Mrs. Gojack, Mcssis. Huff, Jticobsen, Banner. Bickerstaff, Prince, Bennett and Mrs. Brookman WHEI^HAS, Tiie legislature finds that a law school is needed in the University of Nevada System; and WMHREAS, 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 WUERLAS, The legislature at this time desires to have more inlormtition in recard to the cost ol ;i law school at the Uni\'ersity ol Ne\ada, Las Vegas, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED IIY THE ASSEMBLY OE THE STATE OF NEVADA, THE SENAI E 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 be qualified to serve as a Dean ot a Law School liom 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 laculty and stall ol the law school to be located at the University of Nevada. Las Vegas. 3. Tiiat the information developed be submitted to the Board ol Regents ol the University of Nevada, the Governor and .SSth Session ol the Legislature. Pursuant to this resolution the Goxernor appointed a committee releried to as the Law School Advisory Board whose members are as follows: Dr. Ralph Roske, L'NLV, Chairman; Dr. Bruck Di.xon, UNLV, Dr. Lome Seidman, UNLV, John W. Dichl, 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 Mendoz.a, District Judge; Mrs. Herb Nail, APPENDIX PART III. NEVADA DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS. 1. State Bar of Nevada, Liaison Committee with Nevada Legislative Commission on Nevada Law School, Report, April, 1974 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 was to be our relationship with the committee appointed by the Governor to implement the concurrent resolution. It was agreed by 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 be the estimated capital cost thereof and what will be the annual cost for support? r u i 3. How will the money be raised for the capital costs and for the annual support? The committee appointed by the Governor has resolved itself into three subGovernor has been answered as a result of a conference between myselt and Dr. Ralph Roske of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who serves as chairman ot that committee. Dr. Roske has been extremely cooperative and has indicated that all members of the committee appointed by the Bar were welcome at the meetings of the committee established by 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 by 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 by 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 by 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 pre.sently 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 feasibility studies which have been done at the various universities that have been considering law schools over the la^ seven yeius. These reports are voluminous and each member ot our Liaison Committee has been furnished with these reports. APPENDIX PART III. NEVADA DATA RELATIVE_TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS. 1. State Bar of Nevada, Liaison Committee with Nevada Legislative Commission on Nevada Law School, Report, April, 1974 As a result of these reports, the material sent to us hy the President of the State Bar, and that made available to the Legislative Committee, it was deemed advisable by all concerned that a ieasibility study be prepared. In reaching this decision and in establishing a panel from which to select a properly qualiliecl person the Legislative Committee and the Liaison Committee were advised by Professor Millard H. Ruud. Legal Education Consultant lor the American Bai Association and the Association ot American Law Schools. Prolessor 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, has made available lor that study, and for the uses and purposes ot the Legislative Committee, the sum ol $200,000.00 payable $50,000.00 quarterly, commencing January 1, 1974. In addition, Caesars World has pledged the sum ol $300,000.00 towards tiie creation of a law .school library, providing a law school is to be established. Several other persons and organizations have contributed substantial sums ol money or pledged substantial sums ol money towards the creation ot 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 ot UNLV, William H. Pedrick, Dean ot 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 ol 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 ol 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 ol the Board of Regents of the University on May 10, 1974, a lull budget analysis ol a proposed law school will be submitted by 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 theiraction, 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 APPENDIX PART III_. NEVADA DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS. 1. State Bar of Nevada, Liaison Coininittee with Nevada Legislative Commission on Nevada Law School, Report, April, 1974 admittees pursuant to information received Irom the Executive Secretary of the State Bar. We have received 90 responses from the questionnaires. The questions asked and the number of respon.ses to that questionnaire are as follows; Yes No 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? 28 54 3. At the time you entered law school were either your parents or your wife Nevada residents? 43 42 4. At the time you entered law school were you a resident of the State of Nevada? 4^5 41 5. Since you entered law school have your parents become Nevada residents or have you married a Nevada resident? • ^2 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? ^ 23 7. WouldyouranswertoQuestion No. 2bedittercnt if that law school had charged lees and tuition comparable to those charged by a private rather than a state-supported law school? '2 71 Since the questions are not necessarily mutually exclusive, the numberof 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 ot Nevada System. The pfoblem of gaining entrance to a law school at this time tor a non-resident applicant is a considerable problem. Many state law schools have closed their doors to non-residents, 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 alliliation with Nevada. McGeorge Law School is a private school. . . I think the central issue which concerns the members ot the Bar Committee is thtit 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 APPENDIX PART III. NEVADA DATAJRELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS 1. State Bar of Nevada, Liaison Committee with Nevada Legislative Commission on Nevada Law School, Report, April, 1974. meet requirements elsewhere can go to law school. 1 think it is becoming increasingly evident that the quality ol the Nevada Bur 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 be 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 ol tully qualilied Nevada residents who cannot gain admission to law school because of other stales adoption of restrictive non-resident policies before the Legislature should agree to the expense of substantial sums of moneys which will be necessary lor the establishment of a Nevada law school. Unfortunately, the feasibility study ot Dean Pcdrick has not been completed. I seriously doubt if enough of it will be completed by the meeting ot the State Bar for either the Bar or the Board of Governors to take any kind ot 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 matter by the office ot the Governor and other interested parties. If the opinion of the organized Bar is to have an effect it should be enunciated to all concerned individuals promptly upon receiving final and definitive reports. Respectfully submitted. ALVIN N. WARTIVIAN, V. DEVOE HEATON PAUL H. SCHOFIELD JACK G. PERRY LAURANCE M. HYDE, JR. RICHARD W. HORTON REX A. JEMISON THOMAS A. FOLEY LOYAL ROBERT HIBBS Chairman APPENDIX PART III. 2. NEVADA DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS Population Projections for Nevada a. Table 1-1: High and Low County Patterns, 1970-2020(1) 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 1 3,000 15,000 16,000 17,000 18,000 Clark (HTgh) 273,288 500,000 770,000 1,000,000 1,175,000 1,300,000 (Low) , 273,288 473,000 662,000 816,000 930,000 986,000 Douglas 6,882 1 3,000 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 1 7,000 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 1 72,000 219,000 249,000 276,000 291,000 (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 (I)NOTE: Nevada total has been rounded. Asterisked • number not intended for use. Refer to text Part II, Step 7, for explanation. Use 158,000 from Table 1-2. dource: q j..- O o>.. 4-o of ifcvada V/ater Plaaj opoPc"bja:^.ry, I'jTj APPENDIX PART III. NEVADA DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS. 2. Population projections for Nevada, 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 Lvon 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 14,954 933,130 995,382 ^1970 figures from U. S. Census. 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995 and 2000 figures from Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Nevada. PViii Ma-rr»H 1Q71 Source; State of Nevada, Department of Economic Development APPENDIX PART III. NEVADA DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS. 2. Population projections for Nevada, b. By County, 1970-2000. NEVADA POPULATION PROJECTIONS By County for Selected Years, 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 679 671 716 763 814 869 9^ 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 ^^ 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 ^1970 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. Chu, March 1971 Source: State of Nevada, Department of Economic Development a a y B B cn o c o (D t* ^ (D O vn o (c H- 0» 01 H- to H' (D 01 013 o o < ro 3 3 ro 3 ft ft c 3 ro ft o fti 0 o Cfi 0) ft M c Di O ^ O < O fD 0 n 1 3 § 3 (D 3 ft Hft ft . ro 0) O 3 o ft (-• 3" 0) (D tf ?r z (I) n < 0) CL 3 0) ft •< Cfi - ft 0) (-• ft VD (I) --J OJ APPENDIX PART III. NEVADA DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS. 2. Population Projections for Nevada c. Clark County 1970-2000 POPULATION PROJECTION CLARK COUNTY 1970 - 2000 ENTITY 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 max 143.850 202,000 250,000 284,000 312,000 335,000 LAS VEGAS med 125,787 143,390 190,000 229,000 262,000 280,000 295. 000 min 143, 190 185,000 218,000 244,000 .264,000 275,000 max 61, 150 70,000 87,000 100.000 110, 000 120.000 NORTH LAS VEGAS med 45,542 61,030 67,000 80,000 91,000 96,000 100,000 min 60,920 64,000 76,000 85,000 90,000 95,000 max 18,320 24,000 29,000 32,000 42,000 50, OOC HENDERSON med 16,395 17,920 21,000 24,000 25,000 28,000 29, OOC min 17,840 19,000 22,000 23,000 25,000 26, OOC UNINCORPORATED max 106,740 150,000 180,000 205, 000 255,000 300, OOC VALLEY med 74.084 106,470 143, 000 167, 000 187,000 235,000 275, OOC min 106, 160 135,000 158,000 178,000 225,000 265,000 max 6, 140 6,895 9,050 10,480 13,000 15,000 BOULDER CITY med 5,223 6, 120 6, 570 8,400 9, 560 12, 150 min 6, 100 6,450 7,950 9, 100 10, 100 12,000 UNINCORPORATED max 6,760 7,405 18, 500 28, 520 32, 500 COUNTY, Other med 6,257 6,740 7,080 17, 500 27, 540 31,000 min 6,720 6,950 14,900 20,900 24,000 27,000 max 342,960 460,000 573. 550 660,000 764. 500 856.00( total med 273,288 341.670 434,650 525. 900 602, 100 682.750 745.00( ' min 340.930 416.400 496.850 560. 000 638. 100 700.00( APPENDIX PART III. NEVADA DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS. 2. Population Projections for Nevada d. County Population Grov/th Patterns, 1920-2020 K o c 4 o c* Table 1-2: COUNTY POPULATION GROWTH PATTERNS, 1920-2020"' Note: Projected numbers will add to within 1% of State total. Refer to text. Part ii. Step 7, for explanation. 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 State of Nevada 77,407 91,058 110,247 160,083 285,278 488,738 770,000 1,082,000 1,319,000 1,477,000 1,564,000 (DSee Map 1-3 Most Growth: Clark 4,859 8,532 16,414 48,289 127,016 273,288 483,000 715,000 894,000 1,016,000 1,087,000 1,087,000 Percent of State 6.3 9.4 14.9 30.2 44.5 55.9 62.7 66.1 67.8 68.8 69.5 Fast Growth 22,905 31,219 37,741 56,406 96,287 143,418 202,000 267,000 314,000 344,000 358,000 Percent of State 29.6 34.3 34.2 35.2 33.8 29.3 26.4 24.7 23.8 23.3 22.9 Washoe 18,627 27,158 32,476 50,205 84,743 121,068 158,000 206,000 240,000 262,000 271,000 Carson City 2,453 2,221 3,209 4,172 8,063 15,468 31,000 44,000 54,000 60,000 64,000 Douglas 1,825 1,840 2,056 2,029 3,481 6,882 13,000 17,000 20,000 22,000 23,000 Moderate Growth 28,905 28,492 30,996 34,993 43,017 51,717 68,200 81,600 91,100 97,300 102,200 Percent of State 37.3 31.3 28.1 21.9 15.1 10.6 8.9 7.5 6.9 6.6 6.5 Elko . 8,083 9,960 10,912 11,654 12,011 13,958 22,000 28,000 32,000 34,000 35,000 Lyon 4,078 3,810 4,076 3,679 6,143 8,221 11,000 13,500 15,500 17,000 18,500 Nye 6,504 3,989 3,606 3,101 4,374 5,599 7,000 8,500 10,000 i 1,000 12,000 Churchill 4,649 5,075 5,317 6,161 8,452 10,513 13,000 15,000 16,000 17,000 18,000 Humboldt 3,743 3,795 4,743 4,838 5,708 6,375 7,200 8,000 8,600 9,000 9,200 Mineral 1,848 1,863 2,342 5,560 6,329 7,051 8,000 8,600 9,000 9,300 9,500 O x: S3 W SB H a Ct w ti (» O SB S M 0) •-6 O Q. O Hct a" « ai 10,000 CLARK WASHOE REMAINING COUNTIES CARSON CITY DOUGLAS 1920 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 2000 Source! i>\later for Nevada, Water Planning Report Prepared by the State Engineer's Office, Carson City, Nevada, Febiuary 1973* APPENDIX PART III. NEVADA DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS. 2. Population Projections for Nevada ~~ f. Nevada Population, 1920-2020 Figure 1-1 NEVADA POPULATION, 1920-2020. 2,000,000 1,000,000 700,000 500,000 w 400,000 o % Q- 300,000 C (U 5 (U t 200,000 2 O < 150,000 _i Z3 a. O Q. < Q < > 100,000 70,000 PAST PI iOJECTED 1 ! HIGH LOW CENSL S YEAR 5 - M L H: High population growth line (See Table 1-1). M: Most probable population growth line. The M-llne was determined by probability model solution, whereas the H-llne and the L-llne were determined by conditions external to the model. Calculations Involving economic activity and water and related land resource use are based on the M-llne, unless otherwise noted. (See Table 1-2). L: Low population growth line. (See Table 1-1). Source: Water for Nevada, Water Planning Report #5. Prepared by the State Engineer's Office, Carson City, Nevada, February, 1973. APPENDIX PART III. NEVADA DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS. 2. Population projections for Nevada. 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: YEAR POPULATION 22-YEAR-OLDS 1970 491,000 8,000 (or 1.62%) 1973 548,000 8,877 (assuming 1.62%) 1980 (projected) 770,000 12,474 (assuming 1.62% remains constant) Source: U. S. Census Bureau. 3 University of Nevada data. ^ a. Enrollment statistics. University of Nevada ~ UNLV ana TTI^P,. Enrollment statistics for the Fall Semester, 1973: UNLV UNR In-State Students 4,651 5,414 Out-of-state Students 467 1,282 Out-of-state Percentage 10% 24% 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 UN-Las Vegas 858 533 1391 APPENDIX PART III. NEVADA DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS. 4. Nevada Bar information. a. Nevada Bar Admissions — Successful Candidates. 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: Bar Admission — Successful Candidates 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 59 51 74 69 88 Total current membership — Nevada Bar — 865 Year Residents Non-residents 1970 1972 36 38 48 48 APPENDIX PART III. NEVADA DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS. 4. Nevada Bar information. 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 Vanderbilt U. 3 U. of Gal., Boalt Hall 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 York U. 5 U. of Wisconsin 2 U. of Southern Cal. 5 U. of Miami 2 Loyola 4 U. of South Carolina 2 U. of Idaho 4 Brooklyn Law School 2 Amer. U., College of Law 4 Duquesne U. 1 U. of Texas 4 Duke 1 U. of Washington 4 Harvard 1 APPENDIX PART III. NEVADA DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS 4. Nevada Bar information. b. Law schools contributing members of Nevada Bar, 1969-73; law school -- graduates admitted to Nevada Bar, 1969-73. Washington and Lee 1 Ohio State ] 1 Cambridge U. 1 John Marshall 1 U. of New Mexico 1 Cumberland 1 Drake 1 Washburn U. of Topeka 1 Indiana 1 State U. of New York 1 Syracuse U. 1 Cal. Western School of Law Catholic U. of Amer. U. of Chicago Case Western Reserve U. 1 Kent College of Law 1 Louisiana State U. 1 U. of North Dakota 1 U. of Michigan 1 Lewis and Clarke 1 Cornell 1 Suffolk U. 1 U. of Missouri 1 Baylor U. U. of Virginia U. of North Carolina U. of Tennessee Northwestern U. U. of Kansas Southern Methodist U. Gonzaga 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX PART III. NEVADA DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS. 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 Registf 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 — — Kans as 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 APPENDIX PART III. NEVADA DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS. 5. Study of Nevadans taking LSAT and applying to Law School, Educational Testing Service Special Study, June, 1974. 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 i 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 LSDAS file plus a few students who, for one reason or another, do not go through LSDAS but which law schools add to their files for purposes of year-end reporting. With regard to the action column labelled "Registered," this depends on information from law schools and its accuracy is affected by the completeness with which the reporting was done. Some law schools reported no information while others reported partial information so that, at best, these figures represent minima. With regard to the total number of applicants shown at the end of the table (968) , it should be remembered that this represents the number of LSDAS reports sent, not the number of individuals involved. Any individual may have had reports sent to more than one school and, if so, would have been counted more than once. The second report gives mean scores on the LSAT and Writing Ability tests for candidates indicating Nevada as state of permanent residence for the periods shown. APPENDIX PART III. NEVADA DATA RELATI\^ TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS. 5. Study of Nevadans taking LSAT and applying to Law School, Educational Testing Service Special Study, June, 1974. The number of young Nevadans who took the LSAT and registered with LSDAS in 1972-73, is not given in the above table. With the aid of some extrinsic evidence, some satisfactory approximations can be made. In the two-year period, 1970-72, as the attached data shows, 356 candidates took the LSAT from Nevada. In the second year of that two-year period, 1971-72, the present authors are advised from another source that 206 students from Nevada took the LSAT, indicating a continuing upward trend. We estimate that about 235 from Nevada took the LSAT in 1972-73. We do know that for every registrant with the LSDAS in 1972-73, an average of 4.9 law schools were designated to receive reports. On that basis, we estimate that about 200 separate individuals registered with LSDAS and generated the 968 requests for reports to law schools. In light of the number of Nevadans believed to have both taken the LSAT in 1972-73 (235), and the number who are estimated to have registered with LSDAS (200), we are not disposed to weight heavily the Study reported that the number of persons actually enrolled as first-year law students in the Fall of 1973 was 32. 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 nvimber one would expect. APPENDIX PART III. NE/ADA DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS. 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 National Date Number of Candidates LSAT Number of Candidates LSAT 1970-72 356 521 49 183,286 523 50 1968-70 231 511 49 117,534 518 57 166-68 175 521 50 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." APPENDIX PAM III. NEV/vDA DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS. 7. Nevada Bar — provision of service for low-income persons. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA GORDON THOMPSON. CHIEF JUSTICE CARSON CITY, NEVADA 8970I 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 APPENDIX PART III. NEvADA DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS. 7. Nevada Bar — provision of service for low-income persons. Lome Hugh Seidman, Esq. January 4, 1974 Page 2 when a request is solicited for qualified indigents. Your ion, together with that of your fellow members of the ' should not result in an unreasonable burden on you, and your responsibility to provide legal services to those unable to pay will be met without taking an inordinate amount of your time. Sincerely, GORDON THOMPSON, Chief Justice APPENDIX PART III. NEVADA DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS. 8. Nevada Bar Survey. QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS In June, 1974, a questionnaire was sent to all members of the Nevada State Bar. This questionnaire was designed to elicit both specific information and general comments. Responses to questions which solicited general comments have helped us organize this report by raising or emphasizing questions that we have attempted to answer. Responses to questions soliciting specific information have provided us with valuable information on the distribution of lawyers in Nevada and the nature of practice in Nevada. Some of our findings are discussed in Chapter 1 of this report and, for the benefit of the interested reader, additional findings are presented in this section of the Appendix. 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 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 APPENDIX PART III. NEVADA DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAT'TYERS, 8. Nevada Bar Survey. Nevada as their domicile at that time. Other states, and the frequency with which they were mentioned, are as follows: 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. 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 Al so Licensed in Other States 145, or almost 45 per cent, of the respondents indicated they were licensed to practice in a state other than Nevada. The other states and the frequency with which they were mentioned are as follows: Number % Number % California 58 18 Illinois 7 2 Utah 10 3 Arizona 6 2 Colorado 8 2 Texas 4 1 New York 7 2 Other 45 14 APPENDIX PART III. NEVADA DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS 8. Nevada Bar Survey. 7. State of Domicile Prior to Attaining Nevada Domicile. 78, (24 per cent) of the respondents indicated that Nevada has always been their home or that they have resided in Nevada since early childhood. The other states and the frequency with which they were mentioned are as follows: Number % Number California 71 22 New York 8 2 Utah 15 5 Arizona 5 1 Illinois 9 3 Virginia 5 1 Colorado 9 3 Other 60 19 The 60 respondents in the category listed as "other" resided in 25 different states prior to attaining their Nevada domicile. 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 APPENDIX PART III. NEVADA DATA RELATIVE TO LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS. 8. Nevada Bar Survey. to provide reliable information. Many of the spaces were filled by dashes, question marks and comments. The responses, however, provided the following averages: Lawyers in firm or office 3.61 Lawyers recruited in last five years 3.2 Lawyers recruited in last year 1.9 Lawyers likely to recruit in next three years 2.4 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 by Nevada Firms and Legal Departments Respondents indicated that their firm or organization had recruited lawyers from 34 different law schools. The ten schools most often mentioned and the number of times mentioned were as follows: University of Utah 7 U. C., Berkeley 7 Hastings 6 Stanford 5 U.C.L.A. 5 Denver University 5 McGeorge School of Law 4 Harvard University 3 Arizona State University 3 University of San Francisco 2 n M m m m m APPENDIX PART IV. EXTRACTS FROM NEVADA'S ECONOMIC PROSPECTS, m APPENDIX PART IV. EXTRACTS FROM NEVADA'S ECONOMIC PROSPECTS From a specially-commissioned study by Dr. Bernard Malamud, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Projections of Nevada Economic Activity 1 Historical trends are used to project the economic activities listed in Table 1. Each of these activites 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. In order to avoid such ludicrous conclusions, we seek indications of declining growth rates in the economic activities we examine. Maintenance of a constant percentage growth rate requires ever increasing annual increments to a data series, e.g., number of Las Vegas resort and commercial hotel rooms. Ever more and ever larger hotels need to be opened year after year just to match the 8% average annual growth experienced from 1953 to 1972. Even if tourist demand warrants such continued rapid growth, land (and water) availability for resort hotels, for resort worker APPENDIX PART IV. EXTRACTS FROM NEVADA'S ECONOMIC PROSPECTS housing, for housing support industry workers drawn to Las Vegas by resort industry growth, and for conunercial 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 percentage increase in 1973 Las Vegas resort hotel rooms than the 1500 room International Hotel accounted for relative to 1969 Las Vegas hotel rooms. Other Nevada and Las Vegas economic data series have similarly evidenced declining rates of grbwth. The mathematical model adopted for measuring growth rate decline in an economic activity assumes a constant annual rate of decline. That is, growth rate is assximed to start at a high value and to fall by a constant amount in each succeeding year. In the case of Las Vegas hotel rooms, an 11.7% annual growth rate is estimated for 1953; this growth rate is estimated to fall by 35/100 of one percentage point each year following 1953. The declining growth rate model "fits" most of the economic data series well. Like the constant growth rate model, however, it too can lead to questionable projections. The estimated 35/100 J of 1% annual drop in the Las Vegas hotel room growth rate, small though it is, predicts negative growth by 1987 and continued decline in the number of hotel rooms thereafter. Such absolute decline is possible: old rooms may be demolished and replaced by more spacious but fewer rooms; hotels may be converted to other uses. A leveling-off or growth in step with national and world economies seems more likely than decline for Las Vegas hotel rooms and the other activites studied. APPENDIX PART IV. EXTRACTS FROM NEVADA'S ECONOMIC PROSPECTS 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 the natural logarithm of the data series is estimated as a function of time and time-squared; Model A is the constant growth model. Model B, the declining growth rate model, and Model C is, the best combination of the two; The mathematical forms of the three model^ are: MODEL A y^ = EXP (K) EXP (bt) where = 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. APPENDIX PART IV. EXTRACTS FROM NEVADA'S ECONOMIC PROSPECTS 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). MODEL B = EXP (K) EXP (bt - ct^) where c = time equared coefficient measured for the model. All other symbols are as defined before, 1 I i I Thus,!the declining growth rate model projects an activity as a constant term, EXP (K), multiplied by an exponential term that rises 2 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 time-squared coefficients equal the corresponding coefficients of Models A and B weighted by these models' respective information contents, i.e., inversely to their estimation variances. APPENDIX PART IV. EXTRACTS FROM NEVADA'S ECONOMIC PROSPECTS TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF NEVADA ECONOMIC ACTIVITY PROJECTIONS Projected Percentage •1974-75 ' Increases 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 Las Vegas Resort Rooms 30 61 6. . L.V. Convention Attendance 45 67 7. L.V. Real Gross Gaming Rev. ^ 67 183 8. L.V. Real Bank Deposits ^ 36 71 9. a f b Nevada Real Transaction Tax Coll. 20 33 10. Reno Resort Employment 36 85 11. Auto Traffic on 1-80 (CA-Reno) 4 -11 (a)Gaming ravenuaa, bank daposita, and tax oolleotions expressed in 1967 dolla^rs. '"'?r="i:irs'ralertrxT'rasoliner=fg-e:ierrd\I^^^^^ APPENDIX PART IV. SXTilACTS FROM NEVADA'S ECONOMIC PROSPECTS TABLE 2a RROJECTIONS OF LAS VEGAS RESOPT EMPLOYMENT 13969.3 14608.7 15204.0 15747.6 16232.4 22.6 22.0 21 .4 20.8 20.2 9.7 9.1 8.5 7.9 7.4 6.0 I;? 5.1 4.6 t-A 2.9 2.4 1.9 1.3 0.8 0.3 9.7 9.2 8.7 8.2 7.6 7.1 6.6 6.1 5.6 5.1 4.6 4.1 3.6 3.1 APPENDIX PART IV. EXTRACTS FROM NEVADA'S ECONOMIC PROSPECTS TABLE 2c PROJFCTIONS OK AVERAGt OAILY AUTO COUNTS ON I - 15 (1.A-LV) .BOTH DIRCCTIO . o iui/\(-ici r CONSTANT COEF= TIF.E COEF = TIME SQUARED COEFS INFORMATION CONTENT WEIGHT IN MODEL C MODEL A 8.289000 .063066 250 .346 MODEL 6 8.165000 .107130 -.002754 YEAR TRUE VALUE ESTIMATE 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 3776.0 4284.0 4973.0 4802.0 6002.0 631 1 .0 6408.0 6752.0 7640.0 7888.0 8139.0 8085.0 .8360.0 9110.0 10140.0 MODEL C 8.207910 .091882 -.001801 3979.9 4238.9 4514.9 4808.8 121 • S 5455 . 2 5810.3 6188.6 6591 .4 7020.5 7477.5 7964.3 8482.8 9035.0 9623.1 10249.6 10916.8 11627.4 12384.3 13190.5 M049.2 14963.8 15937.8 16975.4 18080.4 19257.4 20511.0 21846.2 23268.3 2'+783.0 26396.3 28114.6 29944.8 472 .654 ESTIMATE 3515.7 3902.5 4308.1 4729.6 5163.9 5607 . 2 6055.0 6502.6 6945.0 7376.8 7792.4 8186.1 8552.5 8866.3 9182.3 9436.I 9643.7 9801 .6 9907 .5 9959.4 9956*7 9899.3 9788.1 9625.0 9412.7 9154.5 8854.5 85i7iP 8147.8 7751.6 7334.2 6901 . 1 6457.9 722 ESTIMATE %GROWTH»C 3669.9 4015.8 4378.5 4756.9 5149.3 5554.1 5969.2 6392.2 6820.6 7251.5 7682.0 8108.7 8520.3 6937.5 9332.5 9710.0 10066.5 10398.5 10702.8 10976.5 11216.6 11420.8 11586.9 11713.2 11798.2 11841 .2 1 1841.6 11799.4 11589.5 11424.1 11220.5 1HQML.0 9.4 9.0 8.6 8.3 7.9 7.5 7.1 6.7 6.3 5.9 5.6 5.2 4.0 4.4 4.0 3.7 3.3 2.9 2.2 1.8 1.5 '•3 .4 .0 -.4 -.7 -1.1 -1.4 -1.8 -2.1 APPENDIX PART IV. EXTRACTS FROM NEVADA'S ECONOMIC PROSPECTS TABLE 2d PKOJECTIONS OF AVKKAGF. DAILY AUTO COUNR»ALL HWYS TO LV^DOTH DIWTCIIOFJS MODEL A M0DE:L B MODEL C CONSTANT COEF= 9,104000 9,019000 9,053853 TIME C0EF= ,053000 ,083060 ,070734 TIME SQUARED COEF= -,001879 -,001109 INFORMATION CONTENT 265 381 WEIGHT IN MODEL C ,410 ,590 YEAR TRUE VALUE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE 646 ESTIMATE %GROWTH,C 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 196? 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 197? 973 974 - 1975 [976 [977 ' 978 979 980 L981 ' 98?' 983 [984 985 ' 1986 1987 [988 1989 8556,0 6991,2 9480,6 8258,5 8956,9 8551,4 9168,0 7,2 973?.0 9996,6 9677,9 9807,4 7,0 10931.0 10540,7 10417,8 10468,0 6,7 1076A,0 11114,4 11172,1 11148,4 6,5 1?3?9,0 11719,4 11936,1 11846,8 6,3 13060.0 1?357,3 12704,6 12561,0 6,0 13304,0 13029,9 13471 ,7 13288,8 5.8 1A444,0 13739, 1 14231,7 14027,6 5,6 15973.0 14486,9 14978,0 14774,7 5,3 1635^,0 15275,A 15704,5 15527,1 5,1 159?0.0 16106,9 16404,3 1IR' NEVAUA STATL US£ FAA COLLT C 1 10^4S , I.... MODEL A MODEL B MODEL C CONSTANT COEF= 3,086000 2.9S9000 3.010625 TIME C0EF= .074595 .116905 .099706 TIME SQUARED C0FF= -.002489 -.001477 INFORMATION CONTENT- 286 - - 418 WEIGHT IN MODEL C .406 .594 — YEAR TRUE VALUE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE 704 ESTIMATE %GR0WTH« 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 197A 1975 1976 1977 197H 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 23.6 23.8 24,8 27.7 29.3 36.3 43.4 45 • 1 47.0 50.2 49.4 51.3 54.3 62.0 63.8 67.9 21.9 23.6 25.4 27.4 29.5 31.8 34.2 36.9 39.8 42.8 46.2 49. 7 53.6 57.7 62.2 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 19.3 20.3 21.6 22.4 10.3 24.1 24.6 10.0 26.8 27.0 9.7 29.6 29.5 9.3 32.5 32.2 9.0 35.5 35.0 8.7 38.7 37.9 8.4 41 .9 41.0 8.1 45.1 44.2 7.7 48.4 47.5 7.4 51.6 50.8 7.1 54.8 54.3 6.8 57.9 57.8 6.5 60.8 61.4 6.2 63.6 65.0 5.9 66.2 68.6 5.5 68.5 72. I 5.2 70.6 75.7 4.9 72.4 79.2 73.8 82.6 4.3 74.9 85.9 4.0 75.7 89.0 3.7 76.0 92.1 3.4 76.0 94.9 3.1 75.6 97.5 2.8 74.9 99.9 2.5 73.8 102.1 2.2 72.3 104.0 1.9 70.5 105.6 1.6 68-.4 106.9 1.3 66.1 108.0 1.0 63.5 108.7 .7 60.7 109.1 .4 57.8 109.2 .1 APPENDIX PART IV. EXTRACTS FROM NEVADA'S ECCMOMIC PROSPECTS TABLE 2j PROJECTIONS OK RENO RESORT EMPLOYWENT (000) CONSTANT COEF= TIME COEF= TIME SQUARED C0EF= INFORMATION CONTENT WEIGHT IN MODEL C MODEL A 1.6S5000 .063466 1064 .514 YEAR 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 196? 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 196H 1969 - 1970 1971 197? 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 979 .980 .981 .9«?' ;9«3 .985 986 :987 .988 .989 TRUE VALUE ESTIMATE 5.5 5.8 6.4 6.9 7.1 7.6 8.3 9.0 9.6 9.9 10.? 10.5 ll.ii 1?. f 15.0 14.6 14.7 5.2 5.6 5.9 6.3 6.7 7.2 7.7 8.2 8.7 9.3 9.9 10.5 11.2 11.9 12.7 13.6 14.4 15.4 16. 17.5 18.6 19.8 21.1 22.5 24.0 25.6 27.3 29.0 30.9 33.0 35.1 37.4 39.9 42.5 MODEL 8 1.645000 .066510 -.000169 1007 .486 ESTIMATE 5.2 5.5 5.9 6.3 6.7 7.2 7.7 8.2 8.7 9.3 9.9 10.6 11.2 12.0 12.7 13.5 14.4 15.3 16.2 17.2 18.3 19.4 20.6 21.9 23.2 24.6 26.0 27.6 29.2 30.9 32.7 34.6 36.6 38.7 MODEL C 1.650137 .064946 -.000082 2071 ESTIMATE %GROWTH,C 5.2 5.6 5.9 6.3 6.7 7.2 7.7 8.2 8.7 9.3 9.9 10.5 il;| 12.7 13.5 14.4 15.3 16.3 17.4 18.5 19.6 20.9 22.2 23.6 25.1 ?6.7 28.3 30. 1 32.0 33.9 36.0 38.3 An - A 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.1 APPENDIX PART IV. EXTRACTS FROM NEVADA'S ECONOMIC PROSPECTS TABLE 2k PWOJHCTIONS OF 0>»ILY AUTO TRAFFIC ON I-60 * C AL I F ORN I A LO MODEL A MODEL B MODEL C CONSTANT C0EF= 8.607000 8.APA000 6.505188 TIME C0EF= .0742AR .130905 .1211A5 TIME SQUARED COEF= -.00A721 -.003908 INFOMWATION CONTENT WEIGHT IN MODEL C 2A1 .172 YEAH TRUE VALUE ESTIMATE 1159 .828 ESTIMATE 1401 ESTIMATE SFGROWTHTC 1962 1963 196A^ 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 197 0 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 5465.0 6010.0 7040.0 7695.0 8455.0 8970.0 9175.0 10141.0 10675.0 11350.0 11550.0 5469.8 5691.4 6345.5 6834.6 7361.3 79^8.7 8539.8 9198.0 9907.0 10670.5 11493.0 12378.8 13332.9 14360.5 15467.3 16659.5 17943.5 19326.5 20616. 1 22420.5 24148.6 26009.6 28014.5 30173.7 32499.4 35004.3 37702.2 40608.1 4836.8 5487 .3 6166.7 6865.2 7571.0 8270.9 8950.6 9595.1 10189.3 10718.7 11169.6 11530.1 11790.3 11943.2 11984.3 11912.6 11730.0 11441.7 11055.5 10582.0 10033.7 9424.3 8 7BB.7 8082.1 7379.2 6674.,? 5979.7 5307.2 4940.3 5554.8 6197.2 6859.9 7534.5 8210.9, 8878.4 9525.5 10140.1 10710.4 11224.6 11672.0 12042.7 12328.5 12522.8 12621.1 12621.1 12522.9 12328.0 2043.1 .1672.5 11225.2 10711.1 10140.9 9526.3 8879.3 8211.8 7535.3 } 12.4 11.6 10.7 9.8 9.0 8.1 7.3 6.5 5.6 4.8 4.0 3.2 2.4 1.6 .8 .0 -.8 -1.6 -2«3 -3.1 -3.8 -4 . 6 -5.3 -6.1 -6.8 -7.5 -8.2 APPENDIX PART V. NEVADA COMPARATIVE FINANCIAL DATA RELEVANT TO LAW SCHOOL COSTS. 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. APPENDIX PART V. NEVADA COMPARATIVE FINANCIAL DATA RELEVANT TO LAW SCHOOL COSTS. 1. Table — Population and Personal Income. SUPPLEMENTARY REFERENCE DATA Table 20. Population and Personal Income 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 • . . WIST VIRGINIA. . WISCONSIN. . . . WYOMING 'Uurpuu of the CennuH, "U.S. Uepartmt'nt ol Conut'on Tutal population, excluding Armed Forces overseas* July 1, 1972 (provisional estimates) July I, 1971, provisional estimates) 207 080 000 205 065 000 3 510 000 5 087 000 325 000 313 000 1 905 COO 1 862 000 1 978 000 I 951 000 20 068 ODD 20 296 000 2 357 000 2 277 000 3 082 000 3 068 000 565 000 559 000 7 259 000 7 025 000 0 720 000 0 660 OOC 809 000 790 000 756 000 737 000 11 251 000 11 182 000 5 29) 000 5 200 000 2 883 000 2 860 000 2 258 000 2 257 000 3 299 COO 5 276 000 3 720 000 3 693 000 1 029 000 I 012 000 0 056 000 0 007 COO 5 787 000 5 7A2 000 9 082 000 8 996 000 3 896 000 3 960 000 2 263 000 2 250 000 0 753 000 0 717 oon 7)9 000 710 000 1 525 000 1 508 000 527 000 510 000 771 000 758 000 7 367 000 7 305 000 1 065 000 1 005 000 18 366 000 18 309 000 5 2)0 000 5 158 000 632 000 628 000 10 783 000 10 739 000 2 630 000 2 600 000 2 182 000 2 139 000 11 926 000 11 90) 000 968 000 9*9 000 2 665 000 2 633 000 679 000 670 000 0 031 000 3 990 noo 11 609 000 11 028 000 1 126 COO 1 095 000 062 000 050 000 0 760 000 0 720 000 3 003 000 3 002 000 1 781 000 1 768 000 0 520 000 0 073 000 305 000 339 000 Personal income calendar year I97l" Amount (millions of dollars) 10 765 1 5?5 7 287 6 0C5 9U 118 9 «57 15 322 2 610 27 611 16 786 3 69a 2 511 53 aoo 21 120 11 088 9 UoO 10 830 12 OiO 3 ai6 18 119 26 285 39 850 15 56a 6 273 18 5f;7 7 5-'5 6 077 2 a60 ?. 877 35 ia6 3 aaA 91 7a2 17 66) 2 222 aa 833 9 lao 8 a 70 a9 >a9 3 957 8 27a 2 321 13 183 a2 562 3 768 1 650 18 a70 la 221 5 789 17 U96 1 331 Per capita (dollars) a 150 3 087 a 875 3 913 3 078 a 6ao a 153 a 995 a 673 3 930 3 599 a 7 38 3 ao9 a 775 a 027 3 877 a 102 3 306 3 252 3 375 a 522 562 a 30 032 788 9ao State Koverrunent portion ul State-locul totals (percent) 3 629 a 030 a 622 3 796 a 811 3 298 S 000 3 a2a 3 538 a 175 3 515 3 959 a la? a 126 3 ia2 3 aai 3 300 3 726 3 aa2 3 63B 3 899 a 132 5 275 3 912 3 929 Tax revenue in fiacal 1970-71* 50.5 7a,0 69.9 61.1 72.6 a6.5 50.2 a8.a 79.7 60. 1 63.9 76.a 6a.0 5U.6 a9.7 a9.9 a9.2 73.2 70.7 55.5 56.8 a7.a 57.5 56.8 73.7 a9.9 05.3 as, 1 58.7 01.a 01.2 78.9 09.3 70.9 5U.2 05. 1 60.1 09.0 58.6 60.8 76.6 01.7 61.0 55.9 63. 1 62.2 59.2 67.0 70.5 59.0 56,7 Payrolls for October 1971* 27.0 38. 1 57.8 29.9 38.7 20.9 37.0 32.9 01.2 20.0 30.7 73.8 37.3 22.9 27.9 29.9 33.7 39.5 35.8 36.0 29.7 27,7 25,0 26.7 35.6 29.7 01,0 50. 3 30.0 39. I 23.1 36.9 19.3 33.2 58.5 23.9 38.8 35.7 27.2 39.3 37,3 36.5 29.7 26.8 03.0 52.0 35.9 30.8 02.7 28.6 36.9 "Bureau ol the Census, Ooveninifntui Finances lit 1970-71. "btirenu of the Census, Public Fmplovmciit In 1971. "Totals do not include data lor the District of Columbia. Series P-25, No. 488. Business. August 1972. bource: Co nr. ere e Coverm-icrxt ginances in 1972, U.S. Depnronent o: APPENDIX PART V. NEVADA COMPARATIVE FINANCIAL DATA RELEVANT TO LAW SCHOOL COSTS. 2. Table — State Revenue, by Type of Tax: 1972. STATE TAX COLLECTIONS IN 1972 Table 3. State Tax Revenue, by Type of Tax: 1972 (Thousands of dollars) State Total Sales and gross receipts (Table 4} Licenses tTable 5) Individual income Corporation net income Property Death and gift Severance Poll Document and stock transfer Other Number of States using tax...... 50 50 50 44 46 43 49 28 5 26 11 All States 59,828,387 33,234,516 5,369,473 12,992,280 4,401,460 1,256 ,796 1,291,524 757,598 3,932 505,267 L5,541 Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California 817,671 102,084 595,413 459,780 6,740,222 563,596 Z),405 361,950 297,389 3,362,272 66,834 16,616 36,592 45 ,937 390,214 118,994 39,112 94,577 70,150 1,838,503 32,908 6,455 28,126 31,568 661,071 25,355 (X) 68,537 1,078 264,695 3,509 68 5,631 1,332 221,205 3,043 14,905 (X) 4,973 2,262 (X) 1,493 (X) (X) (X) 3,432 (X) (X) 1,138 (X) (X) (X) (X) 6,215 (X) Colorado Connecticut..... Delaware Florida Georgia 602,183 988,539 256 ,733 1,996,337 1,198,035 322,925 688,420 60,534 1,522,010 800,048 49 , 238 66,284 78,577 245,092 56,960 174,269 60,968 90,688 (X) 239,900 36,463 122,948 17,518 27,874 88,928 2,328 (X) 339 79,198 4,055 15,885 49 ,919 4,397 31,341 6,865 S61 (X) (X) 2,250 (X) (X) (X) (X) {X (x) (X) (X) 4,680 88,572 (X) 514 (X) (X) (X) 1,279 Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa 388,861 200,062 3,397,844 1,187,234 759,410 245 ,378 101,955 1,991,573 771,402 399 , 295 5,642 28,886 319,591 81,665 99,254 120,063 50,191 843,251 283,669 202,158 13,532 12,894 173,912 10,526 37,109 (X) 810 2,777 22,223 121 3,635 5,174 63,534 17,475 20,255 (X) 152 (X) 221 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) 611 (X) 3,206 (X) 1,218 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland 527,813 860,927 1,105,116 263,575 1,272,413 324,547 549,610 55?,345 187,646 596 ,845 53,369 51,459 79,422 25,951 79,043 95,345 156,369 105,354 28,179 456,854 33,153 53,903 79,523 8,588 77,441 11,331 28,477 29,117 5,819 36,273 9,382 14,054 9,899 7,390 11,250 6B7 5,941 244,456 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) 2 (X) (X) 1,114 (X) (X) 11,692 (X) (X) (X) (X) 3,015 Massachusetts... Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri 1,805,335 3,032,665 1,324,471 588,236 1,047 , 247 679,928 1,565,319 580,668 450,644 603,007 74,266 347 , 273 95,095 38,117 114,974 743,628 726,287 483,215 54,655 254,063 239,264 267,303 112,403 22,953 52,218 273 92,666 2,868 4,345 3,818 61,245 32,530 25,77 2 3,333 19,167 (X) 967 20,080 14,168 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) 6,731 (X) 4,338 (X) (X) (X) (x") 21 (X) Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire... Now Jersey 182,817 319,480 180,863 139,175 1,626 , 285 62,036 212,524 151,721 82,514 1,096,378 24,653 40,013 15,632 22,255 250,419 68,082 54,170 (X) 6,618 23 , 258 11,523 10,106 (X) 16 ,340 119,528 7,492 508 12,621 4,362 62,075 4,557 844 (X) 4,889 74,627 4,474 631 128 72 (X) (X) (X) (X) 1,579 (X) (X) 684 488 546 (x) (X) (X) 273 (X) (X) Now Mexico New York North Carolina.. North Dakota.... Ohio 356,373 7,020,209 1,460,869 157 ,807 2,189,413 219,639 2,864,452 789,453 101 ,874 1,515,085 26,842 365.333 134,330 21 ,785 336.334 44,088 2,516,257 361,816 19,506 111,269 13,211 781,010 123,502 8,87 2 134,698 15,030 14,733 28,551 1,476 65,515 1,685 177 , 286 23,215 988 25,648 35,878 (X) (X) 3,306 864 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) 301,133 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) 2 (X) (X) 645,460 335,413 90,689 97 ,759 28,014 (X) 18 ,7 25 73,342 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) 1,516 (X) 41,07 2 400 4,471 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) Oregon Pennsylvania.... Rhode Island.... South Carolina.. 507,914 3,862,969 300,9t)7 682,840 121 ,922 1,968,947 176,033 453,7 22 78,818 480,643 20,455 36,044 251,226 730,641 66,416 127,708 40,606 481,600 28,619 52,312 50 35,672 (X) 2,048 12,911 124,394 8,984 6,535 2,381 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) 1,516 (X) 41,07 2 400 4,471 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) South Dakota.... 133,347 887,450 112,367 622,789 17,409 135 , 230 (X) 13,598 *850 77,804 (X) (X) 2,721 26,979 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (x) 8,386 (X) 2,664 (X) (X) (X) 2,571,960 1,801,817 357 , 262 (X) (X) 61,589 39,308 311,979 (X) (X) (X) (X) 5 (X) 1,662 (X) 2,664 (X) (X) (X) 307 ,915 179,709 20,085 74,096 12,636 14,634 2,817 3,938 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) 5 (X) 1,662 (X) 2,664 (X) (X) (X) 158,253 81,842 17 ,180 46,102 6,593 316 3,703 3,938 (X) 855 5 (X) 1,662 (X) 2,664 (X) (X) (X) 1,188,766 604,541 95,700 365,379 77,642 14,392 16,156 551 (X) (X) 313 *3 (X) 14,104 1,936 238 (X) (X) 1,320 (X) 1,174,568 927,408 82,517 (x) (X) 132,350 30,357 551 (X) (X) 313 *3 (X) 14,104 1,936 238 (X) (X) 1,320 (X) West Virginia... 529,385 1,628,043 386,455 692,883 35,950 101,350 89,152 594,697 10,608 116,805 508 86,386 5,598 33,273 551 (X) (X) 313 (') (X) (X) 1,116 1,016 (X) 238 (X) (X) 1,320 (X) Wyoming 97,145 65,229 16,134 (X) (x) 9,660 1,047 5,075 (') (X) (X) 1,116 1,016 (X) 238 (X) (X) 1,320 (X) - Represents zero or rounds to zero. X Not applicable. ^Estimated. ^Repealed. Source: State Tax Collections in 1972, U.S. Departr:ent of Comerce APPENDIX PART V. NEVADA TO LAW 3. Table — Expenditure COMPARATIVE FINANCIAL SCHOOL COSTS, by Type and Function: DATA RELEVANT 1972 INDIVIDUAL STATES Table 9. Expenditure by Type and Function: 1972—Continued (Thousands of dollars) Education--Continued State State Institutions ot higher education—Continued tiocal schools other education State Current operation—Con. Capital outlay Total Current operation Capital outlay Total Current operation Capital outlay Aaalatanea and aubaldlea State Other Total Conatructlun only Total Current operation Capital outlay Total Current operation Capital outlay Aaalatanea and aubaldlea ALL STATES. 9 086 263 2 551 215 2 051 316 990 559 301 923 188 636 3 261 596 1 916 959 329 616 1 032 976 ALABAMA. , . . 160 700 50 900 91 019 9 023 3 779 299 71 968 61 699 1 989 8 090 ALASKA .... 3«* '•dl 18 691 19 960 59 509 33 185 21 319 13 662 11 875 59 1 748 ARIZONA. . . , 130 997 27 009 20 570 • • a 23 796 15 019 817 7 965 ARKANSAS . • . 69 858 12 052 10 053 • • • 30 380 26 583 1 137 2 660 CALIFORNIA . . 893 256 119 211 75 029 16 396 16 380 16 197 623 70 118 916 77 089 COLORADO . , , 19R 128 32 153 lY 223 37 97d 21 506 612 15 860 CONNECTICUT. . 112 572 24 921 19 995 • • • 56 837 32 926 19 999 9 962 OELAMARE . . • 39 958 23 605 19 237 6 216 6 218 • 19 005 16 589 396 2 025 FLORIDA, , . , 208 071 98 955 37 667 6 875 6 875 • 81 961 62 055 9 629 19 782 QE0R6IA. . • • 197 082 79 732 61 966 22 977 r 22 938 59 162 93 609 2 993 7 865 HANAII .... 87 771 13 059 7 050 189 227 169 265 29 962 10 092 7 273 1 269 1 505 IDAHO 38 768 11 151 a 511 • • • 19 993 11 609 890 2 299 ILLINOIS • • • M09 217 172 053 196 669 16 981 • 16 981 170 956 90 181 1 269 79 506 INDIANA, , • • 310 205 79 868 51 875 m • 82 821 51 358 919 30 599 IOWA 151 877 32 192 2d 636 • • 90 262 22 926 1 009 16 327 KANSAS .... 126 593 28 095 20 996 id 375 12 378 515 5 962 KENTUCKY . . . 178 803 38 329 32 560 2 876 2 876 50 310 37 309 5 797 7 259 LOUISIANA. . . 153 966 37 057 27 366 7 230 7 230 38 79b 28 790 2 512 7 996 MAINE 91 666 9 019 3 965 1 676 1 569 107 17 959 13 938 2 915 1 601 MARYLAND , . . 159 576 71 168 61 635 • " 80 555 56 529 7 935 16 096 MASSACHUSETTS. 173 598 200 939 1R9 269 73 879 60 129 589 13 166 MICHIGAN . , . 532 536 67 968 39 276 • • 152 936 105 157 860 96 921 MINNESOTA. . . 300 627 121 639 99 386 • - 37 937 21 929 268 15 225 MISSISSIPPI. . 83 205 7 161 J 269 3 369 3 369 33 27tt 21 937 9 001 7 690 MISSOURI . . . 187 959 99 999 91 065 • " 33 515 29 033 297 9 185 MONTANA. . . . 90 569 7 019 5 121 13 729 9 979 915 3 335 NEBRASKA . • . 83 689 19 158 10 309 m • 16 950 12 925 898 3 677 NCVAHA .... 32 350 9 621 9 378 m • 5 992 9 098 51 1 393 NEN HAMPSHIRE. 39 302 8 297 7 263 m • 10 370 8 120 50 2 200 NEW JERSEY . . 207 093 55 150 97 119 " " 136 627 97 775 7 020 31 832 NCR MEXICO . . 90 617 10 976 9 099 2 998 2 998 15 720 10 288 616 9 816 NEK YORK . . . 502 213 332 162 317 706 • • 521 950 186 159 196 789 186 507 NORTH CAROLINA 238 395 28 165 20 293 10 919 6 299 9 670 58 579 36 319 7 641 19 629 NORTH DAKOTA . 91 099 to 230 d 901 • • 12 505 9 039 140 3 326 OHIO 919 659 136 623 109 992 • 83 339 66 709 52 16 578 OKLAHOMA . • . 121 803 10 799 9 899 3 700 3 700 39 968 30 599 968 6 956 OREGON .... 132 869 15 809 10 712 > • 30 051 20 929 296 9 331 PENNSYLVANIA . 297 999 102 830 81 907 73 399 m 73 399 961 893 199 000 78 579 239 269 RHODE ISLAND . 95 533 17 265 16 051 • • •• 21 129 13 535 3 219 9 370 SOUTH CAROLINA 87 050 33 975 26 151 19 299 15 272 9 027 69 796 56 7J5 9 177 3 839 SOUTH DAKOTA . 37 963 13 998 12 119 6 522 9 906 620 I 996 TENNESSEE. . . 159 395 32 691 28 166 • •• 52 529 39 382 3 461 9 661 TEXAS 950 003 106 813 71 920 23 999 23 999 • 85 538 66 039 2 046 17 953 UTAH 109 063 32 523 26 039 • • • 19 965 8 616 373 5 996 VERMONT. • • • 36 368 7 899 5 690 • • • 19 190 5 380 a 198 5 562 VIRGINIA . . , 210 675 50 679 3d 646 85 155 69 802 2 292 13 061 KASHIN6TCN . . 286 699 50 962 37 932 21 003 21 .003 27 599 18 159 351 9 039 *£ST VIRGINIA. 76 736 10 050 6 297 • • 23 890 18 270 1 957 3 613 WISCONSIN, . . 392 606 97 765 73 866 • • 77 100 96 900 973 27 727 WYOMING. • • . 26 131 5 610 3 667 • • 9 790 2 911 27 2 302 ro or rounds to sero. Sovirce: State G-ovornment Finances in 1972, U.S. Deyarteient of Comerce APPENDIX PART V. NEVADA COMPARATIVE FINANCIAL DATA RELEVANT TO LAW SCHOOL COSTS. 4. Table — Relation of Selected Financial Items to Personal Income: 1972. DERIVED COMPARATIVE STATISTICS Table 6. Relation of Selected Financial Items to Personal Income: 1972 50-STATE AVERAGE MEDIAN STATE. . ALABAMA. . ALASKA . . ARIZONA. . ARKANSAS . CALIEGRNIA 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 . • MEW 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. . . . General revenue per $1,000 of personal income 115.67 126.42 141.34 273.15 129.36 135.22 123.29 121.20 96.75 151.87 103.60 120.46 160.39 141.66 101.19 91.55 110.11 94.52 136.02 164,73 147.00 107.27 110,99 117.64 136.41 170.53 92.65 150.52 95.33 116.60 94,?3 62.35 200.15 121.70 126.47 152.49 79.02 136.68 117.58 113.75 124.36 133.71 130.30 114.54 102.60 161.39 165.55 107.12 135.69 162.26 137.07 175.29 General sales or gross receipts 70.22 72.53 75.96 66.94 81.71 76,57 71,61 63.68 64.52 96,37 72,07 71.37 105.27 79.67 63.63 56.21 66.49 55.79 79.49 92.02 60.93 70.23 68,70 76.85 65.10 93.77 56.51 71.00 52.57 73.52 46.36 46.27 103.36 76.50 62.72 71.02 46.83 71,05 59.97 78.26 76,04 62.54 57.45 67.32 60.40 61.72 95,91 64.61 62.59 91,45 93,05 72.99 Individual income 20,66 *21,01 30.75 24.09 21.31 19,66 23.41 31.72 25.35 50,45 20,59 20.69 20.70 19,73 16,96 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 lo,71 16.43 27.44 16.59 19.84 23.02 29,67 26,17 20.69 19.43 31,24 13.67 14.10 42.77 36.76 21,91 20.22 1R,2« '14,37 11,05 25.65 12.96 11.66 19.53 16.43 3.98 34,75 14.29 32.50 19,99 15.79 13.43 16.23 10.08 14.44 P.77 6.25 25.21 26.29 16.29 31.05 6.71 13.62 26.44 6,91 2.30 0.66 12.79 27,41 20.49 6,76 2,46 10,70 24.66 14,61 16.78 15.43 Revenue from Federal Government 1.03 19.66 27.94 19.66 15.40 33,99 Charges and miscellaneous 31.42 33.63 40.69 110.15 30.40 47.67 36.61 37,74 20.77 30.62 22.53 36.06 45.64 46.40 30.14 20.16 24.91 24,00 40,97 43.43 47,23 21.62 29,11 26.56 33.00 59,86 28,30 60.05 25.13 32.67 26.67 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 29.56 55,58 60.61 26.16 34.51 57,75 27.56 69,69 General expenditure per $1,000 ol personal incomi 12.64 14.63 15,54 95.96 16.45 10.95 9.94 19.65 11.26 22.76 6,37 10.66 27,80 14.66 7,10 14.75 13.12 13.16 16.95 26.03 17.63 14.11 6,96 12.79 16.12 16.26 7.62 17,46 14,72 11.13 16,54 11.66 33.03 10,70 13.64 32.62 10.56 22.56 17.53 9.60 14.81 15.65 26.61 11.19 12.52 23.38 26.22 Education 115.86 126.10 139,57 377.18 129,64 124.44 117,53 119,86 101,76 157,43 90.69 116.21 207.13 139.26 95,54 69.18 115.04 94,22 145,56 163.15 143.16 116.25 112.20 113.73 139.59 166,35 90.46 143.95 91.68 117,90 106.14 65.32 184,36 13M,65 123,97 146.32 70,54 13'.18 12*'.76 115.92 122,72 129,76 13C.31 109.77 97.22 163,46 196.35 State institutions of higher education 44,97 50,24 63.22 136.54 62.56 49,99 35.35 51.65 33,64 76,69 46,13 50,46 63,07 54.16 36.25 43,39 47,32 37,66 57,05 64.25 46.41 43,63 33.41 45,97 62.45 66,19 36.64 51.68 33,67 46,2b 29,35 26.17 69.63 47.54 62.55 52.71 29,96 52,40 43.79 46.33 43.46 59.66 51.16 44,20 46,26 86,55 7C,75 45.46 59,00 57,10 52,22 61.55 Intergovem15.69 16,99 22.98 37,15 25,67 17,35 11.60 27,95 10.16 27.26 10.67 16.11 29.13 23.76 12.73 21,42 10.77 19.13 22.40 19.56 16,72 14,31 15,51 17,93 30.41 10,92 14,36 23.05 19.06 15.98 19.06 0.06 34.26 9.60 lc.50 26.86 14.54 21.66 20.24 9.21 16.04 17,51 32,72 17.26 15.60 42.59 31.60 16.55 26,11 16,39 28.35 27,99 24.86 24.89 33.23 54,68 33.63 27.59 21.98 19.60 19.96 39,75 31.99 27.61 24,45 20.01 18.05 24.91 16,79 29,74 40.63 23.94 24,68 19.06 24.20 29.63 41.43 22.46 23.31 11.61 30.07 5.06 14.22 4V,96 32.25 40.11 16,21 13.56 26.02 20.01 26.20 20.10 32.21 15.65 22.95 26.09 39.99 27.55 24,20 29.40 34,67 19,46 30.00 Public welfare 10,04 21.45 24,66 74,92 22,95 26.26 13,70 21.46 14.36 21.45 19.40 17,00 16.41 31.37 16.90 17.06 29.08 19.54 37,19 27.77 29,62 17,13 6.96 15,00 19,73 33.13 17,32 45,50 20.53 26.54 25.81 13.01 33.45 10.06 20.97 34,62 15,75 22,50 26,22 17.97 9.21 20,14 32.15 22.98 18.36 30.89 39.77 20,67 23.95 64.60 14,41 56.62 22.51 18.21 23.70 22.10 9.60 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 22.65 30.99 13.66 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 tlmatcd for calendar 1971 (soe table 20). Note: State financial amounts for flscsl 1972 ure related heroin to personal Income data as es '>l«dUn«'"b««od''m tho.b'stntob havlnn th. •pocHlcd Jto. aro; Oonaral salaa op proaa rocolpta taaea, $23.02; and Individual Incooe taxaa, $15.42. Soii.rce: SttLte Goveriiient Finances in 1972, Coir.moi'ce U.S. Deparfeerit of APPENDIX PART VI. BUDGET PROJECTIONS Budget Projections. (a) Budget Projections for the Planning Year (b) Budgeting for the First-Year Class (c) Further General Budgetary Projections (d) Physical Facilities — Temporary and Permanent Basic Assumptions; To project 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. To secure the Dean and get the planning activity under way at the beginning of the fiscal year will require six months or more of lead time. One must take into account the likelihood that the Dean, upon selection, would probably have present commitments limiting his availability to a part-time or part-year basis. It is probable that the planning period would occupy all of fiscal 1975-76. During 1974-75, provision should be made to cover a salary for the new Dean, or consulting fees for his service, during the portion of the year before he is fully "on board." Some additional funds for travel, secretarial services and the like may be required. In addition, some provision might be required in 1974-75 to begin to plan for the permanent home to be built for the Law School. Interim costs of the sort just described are not further elaborated. As a rough estimate, $50,000 probably will cover costs to be encountered in 1974-75, apart from any law building planning costs. (2) Although the ultimate size of the Law School, within limits, would not greatly affect the cost of the planning year or the first year of academic operation, it may be well to state that the Law School envisaged by the Consultants for the University will be the smallish, mediumsized 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 adjsorptive capacity for law graduates. APPENDIX PART VI. BUDGET PROJECTIONS (3) A school offering full-time or day classes only is contemplated. If evening classes were to be added, additional costs would be encountered. Total student numbers would not seem to justify an evening program. To begin the only Law School in the State of Nevada with both a day and evening division school would prejudice the quality of school in absolute terms as respects total financial costs and in terms of prestige, taking into account of the fact that some evening division schools are not adequately financed and, accordingly, do not stand high in the world of education. (4) Although the costs of the Planning Year and the first year of academic operation would not be much affected, the Law School envisaged for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, would be a school adequately financed to undertake what has come to be described as "Law Center" function embracing, among other things, responsibility for development of programs of Continuing Education for the Bar, responsibility for organized legal research to assist the Legislature and other branches of Government and further functions characteristic of Law Centers. The cost of those added functions, which extend beyond the central responsibility of educating law students, will appear most significantly in budgetary projections for the second and third years of the Law School's operation. (5) The capital costs for the Law School, notably capital costs for the Law Library and for the Law Building, are separately treated. (6) The inflation factor as to all items of cost will require adjustment of the figures here presented to take account on lapse of time between the present projection and the actual incurred expenditures. (7) The budget figures offered in this Memorand\im 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. APPENDIX PART VI. BUDGET PROJECTIONS (a) Budget Projections for the Planning Year; The salary figures used are set substantially at the level of median salaries for law deans, librarians and law professors. The national figures, as reported by the Section of Legal Education of the American Bar Association, reveal that, in the Mountain States Region, salaries at the better law schools — Utah, Colorado, Arizona and Arizona State — are at or above the national median figures. It is not contemplated that the University of Nevada should endeavor to lead the way on salary levels in legal education. The assumption, rather, is that salaries for law faculty in Nevada should be competitive with the good Law Schools of the Region. (The figures are offered in terms of 1974-75 dollars.) (1) Administration — Dean's Office Salaries Dean Associate Dean Secretary $ 36,000 - $ 40,000 $ 27,000 - $ 30,000 $ 8,000 (Administrative Assistant) Clerical Assistant (Wages) $ 6,500 $77,500 - $84,500 Total (2) Law Library — Salaries and Wages Salaries Librarian Assistant Librarian Cataloguer Secretary Part-time Help (Wages) $ 23,000 - $ 28,000 $ 14,000 - $ 17,000 $ 12,000 $ 6,000 $ 5,000 $60,000 - $68,600 Total APPENDIX PART VI. BUDGET PROJECTIONS (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 (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 — $ 7,500 technical (course materials, reproduction) Office Assistant $ 7,500 (Secretary for Admissions) Outer-Office Recep- $ 12,000 tionist and typist (2) Travel 9,000 Total $121,500 *Plus $150,000 from private funds given for Law Library development APPENDIX PART VI. BUDGET PROJECTIONS (2) Instruction Salaries Faculty (4) Faculty Secretary (1) - ' Operations (xeroxing and reproduction of — — course materials, office supplies, telephone, student orgcinizations, financial assistance. Law School Paper or Newsheet, visiting lecturers' expenses and honoraria and annual Bulletin or Catalogue of the Law School) Capital equipment for instruction (typewriters, desks, equipment for reproduction of course materials) $ 5,000 * 35,000 Total , - $146,000 (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* First-Year Operation Total Budget $452,500 *Plus $150,000 from private funds given for Law Library development APPENDIX PART VI. BUDGET PROJECTIONS The Law Library Capital Requirements — Planning Year and Thereafter; Although the standards of the two accrediting organizations, the Section of Legal Education of the American Bar Association and the Association of American Law Schools, both specify required minimal library holdings, it is generally recognized that accreditation of a new law school is not likely to be extended if the library holdings simply meet the bare minimum. This position of requiring more from newly-organized schools is formalized in the "Policy Statement on Accreditation of New Law Schools" issued by the Association of American Law Schools. The same policy is, in fact, administered by the Section of Legal Education of the American Bar Association. Accordingly, for a newly-organizing school, a first goal for the law library of 50,000 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 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. III. Further General Budgetary Projections; After the first full year of operation, the school will receive its second entering class. The following year, the school would be in full operation with three classes in residence. There will be a sharp APPENDIX PART VI. BUDGET PROJECTIONS 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 substcintially 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 ^uuu 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 costing from $600,000 to $800,000, in on the rate of Law Library growth and Law Center function activity. Enlarged enrollment and enlarged function will require a larger operating budget. Projecting that figure ahead five provide an estimate for the then to be encountered costs. By 1979-80, it is probably very optimistic to per-student costs will be as low as $3500. A figure of $4000 for the Mountain States Region would be more realistic, but lem basically is to gauge the pace of inflation. The Consultan has no crystal ball on that front. (d) Physical Facilities — Temporary and Permanent; (1) Temporary Accommodations. In the first year or two of the life of a new Law School, it is assumed that the school will be housed in temporary quarters. The object here is to estimate roughly the requirements for the temporary interim physical facilities needed for the beginning Law School. The space needs and the estimated requirements for the first two years of operation are as follows: Classroom (1) Student lounge and study area (1) Offices (for Dean, Associate Dean, four Professors and two Administrative Assistants) Secretarial Offices Reception Library (stack space, study space and library staff work space) Total 1500 sq. ft. 1500 sq. ft. 2800 sq. ft. 450 sq. ft. 250 sq. ft. 4000 sq. ft. 10500 sq. ft. APPENDIX PART VI. BUDGET PROJECTIONS 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 of 60,000-80,000 gross square feet will be required. It should be borne in mind that legal education is presently in a transition period — moving actively towards skill-type instruction. The teaching of the skills of advocacy, of pleading, of interviewing, counseling, drafting and negotiating require a much more intensive use of teaching staff. This means a relatively larger teaching staff with varied needs, both for office space and teaching facilities. Accordingly, the Law School building of 20 or 30 (or even 10 years ago) is not really adequate for the activities to be expected as a part of a modern law school operation. Any law building for a Law School built in Nevada should, as well, be built both with an eye for future expansion to cover both increased numbers of students and additional functions on the part of the Law Center. APPENDIX PART VI. BUDGET PROJECTIONS SUMMARY OF BUDGETARY PROJECTIONS FOR LAW SCHOOL For Pre-planning Year (1974-75) ; $50/000. Planninq Year (1975-76); Operations Library Capital 100 > 000. Planning Year $279,100. First Year of Operation (1976-1977): Operations $352,500. _ Library Capital 100,OOP• 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. APPENDIX PART VII. STATEMENTS. In this section of the Appendix are offered statements secured from a nvimber 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. APPENDIX PART VII. STATEMENTS Swprem? (Hmwrt 3acfe p. ^l|0mfac, ^rburna 85007 (itlfirf 0uBticr 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 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, JDHH mr APPENDIX PART VII. STATEMENTS UTAH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION STATE BOARD OF REGENTS 0 HOMER DURHAM Commissioner of Higher Education Chief Executive Officer 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 Vegas, 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 1 respond with enthusiasm. 1 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 and development of the state since that time has exceeded the expectations of those of us involved in the survey team at that time. 1 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 Vegas, but the entire University of Nevada System, and the State itself. My reasons are fairly simple. But 1 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. 136 East South Temple • Suite 1201 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 • Telephone 801-328-5617 UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Salt Lake City 1850 UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan 1888 WEBER STATE COLLEGE Ogden 1889 SOUTHERN UTAH STATE COLLEGE Cedar City 1897 SNOW COLLEGE Ephraim 1888 DIXIE COLLEGE St. George 1911 COLLEGE OF EASTERN UTAH Price 1937 UTAH TECHNICAL COLLEGE Salt Lake City 1947 UTAH TECHNICAL COLLEGE Prove 1941 APPENDIX PART VII. STATEMENTS Dean Willard H. Pedrick Page 2 July 9, 1974 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 .^d valuable flavor to these influences when a law school is visible and'influences present on a campus. The same indirect effects can be se^ in student life. The campus newspaper, student affairs generally, the use of the 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 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 pL±»lic officials generally, a law school is, beyond doubt, a first-class investment. APPENDIX PART VII. STATEMENTS Dean Willard H. Pedrick Page 3 July 9, 1974 The decision, of course, is one which can be made only by the responsible officials of the State of Nevada. But I appreciate the privilege, as an outsider, of offering these views. G. Homer Durham Commissioner of Higher Education GHDijbf APPENDIX PART VXI. STATEMENTS 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 xiniversity 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 \iniversity 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 APPENDIX PART VII. STATEMENTS 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 Judicial 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 xintil we now have one of the finest plants to be found anywhere particularly in a State the size of New Mexico, about 1,000,000 people . J. D. Compton Chief Justice Supreme Cotu:t 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 APPENDIX FART VII. STATEMENTS 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 f\anctions 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 APPENDIX PART VII. STATEMENTS 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 system of the state but to the university itself. It is my opinion that it adds a certain amotint 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 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 APPENDIX PART VII. STATEMENTS 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 L^ 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 hximanities. The presence of a law school faculty and student body permeates the academic atmosphere of a great university. It allows for interdisciplinary research in teaching that gives a legal perspective to a curriculvim; it strengthens the entire student body 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.