Whose Job is it to Ensure Future Attorney Satisfaction?

With all of the attention given lately to law firm downsizing, lack of jobs for new graduates and declining numbers of available positions  for lawyers, one would think Law Schools have their hands full just trying to prepare the next crop of lawyers for the practice of law and  provide the skills needed to succeed in the profession.  The greatest emphasis in articles lately is preparation of the practice-ready lawyer, and that firms need lawyers that can hit the ground running.  Absorbing the cost of long periods of training is referred to by some as an out-dated concept,  and more and more clients object to being billed for new associate time which can be perceived as paying for training.

Citing high rates of attorney depression, substance abuse and mental health issues, one new law grad says Law Schools should have an even greater focus: attorney job satisfaction.  Recent University of California-Berkley Law Grad Michael Serota wrote a commentary published in the  National Law Journal  claiming Law Schools have a moral obligation to produce healthy, satisfied lawyers, adding that "It is self-evident that they (law schools) should begin educating law students on the topic of professional satisfaction by elucidating the importance of making career decisions based on their professional values. By helping them identify their professional values and make individual career decisions that correspond to those values, law schools can help lawyers and law students derive satisfaction from their professional lives."

Serota recommends that all graduate schools pay more attention to professional satisfaction. In the current economy, with declining numbers of available jobs and greater experience expectations for those entering the legal profession, should law schools feel obligated to spend time on happiness, satisfaction and helping students find their professional values?  Also consider satisfaction levels of graduates who are not able to find employment in their chosen field.  If large numbers of law grads are forced to take positions outside of the profession  just to have gainful employment, one would imagine that the disappointment factor would be huge and their job satisfaction would be even lower. Should law schools spend their time teaching basic legal theory and study, preparing practice-ready attorneys, or take time out of that goal to focus on future career satisfaction?  Or is their time for both?  We would be interested in your comments (below).