Law school applications are declining more slowly and entry level hiring has begun to recover. First-year law school enrollments have shrunk from more than 52,000 in 2010 to a far more sustainable 38,000 in 2014. Recent studies by Profs. Frank McIntyre and Michael Simkovic continue to vindicate the long-run earning power of the J.D. degree. Perhaps you can hear law school deans breathing sighs of relief. Alas, it is way too soon for that.

Law schools that view nascent positive trends as license to return to business as usual will be missing the far more profound changes in the legal profession that demand new approaches to legal education. The most significant change is the extent to which knowledge of the law is cheaper and easier to obtain for everyone with access to a computer. Future lawyers can expect to earn less for merely informing clients about the law. How lawyers will add value in this changed environment is the question of the day. How lawyers should be trained to do so should be a top priority for every legal educator in the United States.

Some things, of course, will never change. Clients will always need advocates capable of translating large amounts of complex information into compelling written and oral arguments. People of means will readily pay for counselors who can assist them in memorializing transactions, negotiating deals, and navigating regulatory complexity. And the lawyerly skills of separating wheat from chaff, managing complexity, and paying attention to detail will be prized by clients and employers for years to come. The Socratic method, the reading of appellate cases, and the traditional issue-spotting exam have proven successful at training lawyers in these familiar ways. But if this is all we do, our students will graduate unprepared for an economy in which a wider array of skills will be needed to thrive.