Monday, October 12, 2009
Law School Conundrum
The law school curriculum sometimes seems very odd.
At better schools, most of the students aspire to high-paying jobs with large law firms. Few of them aspire to a low-paying general practice. Yet, our curriculum is crafted so as to train our students to be general practitioners. That is, we make them take roughly equal amounts of torts, property, contracts and criminal law in the first year. In the upper-level courses they may specialize to some degree, but rarely does that specialization include much that overlaps with what people at big firms actually do. That is, in both traditional classes and clinical offerings, there is often relatively little that covers the two primary functions of large-firm partners and associates: (1) The discovery process in litigation, and (2) the nuts-and-bolts of transactional law practice. Nor, at most schools, is there much to prepare students for what actually happens in criminal practice. (I am speaking generally here-- Because of Practice Court and some other aspects of the curriculum, I think that this is much less of a problem at Baylor than it is at some other schools).
The outcome is that we have trained best those who have done the worst and are relegated to a general practice, as they are unable to get large-firm jobs. (Please understand that personally I think these general-practice jobs actually can be far superior to large-firm practice; I am simply dealing with what I perceive as the desires of most students). Meanwhile, we have provided the least relevant training to those who do the best, and get the plum big-firm jobs.
Of course, some grounding in the basic fundamentals of torts, property, contracts, and criminal law is essential. Still, are we over-doing it? What would be the right balance?
[Note: Cross-posted at Law School Innovation]
Comments:
<< Home
I work at a "big firm" and 70% of my time is discovery and the other 30% is brief writing/legal research. I've never had to classify a real estate interest once. E-discovery, how to deal with meta-data, and how to effectively manage large document productions are key issues for associates now in large law firms - much more so than trial advocacy.
That's not to say trial advocacy and practice court are not important (they are and should be required courses for all students), but I think there is some truth to the notion that the "top" students usually end up at big firm jobs, where they will get much less opportunity to actually be in court as opposed to someone who decides to do criminal law or hang up their own shingle.
I also think professional responsibility should be another hour or emphasized more. The stuff you learn in that class gets used every day, and it ends up being the "blow-off" class to evidence and practice court students. Maybe move it up to a second year course?
That's not to say trial advocacy and practice court are not important (they are and should be required courses for all students), but I think there is some truth to the notion that the "top" students usually end up at big firm jobs, where they will get much less opportunity to actually be in court as opposed to someone who decides to do criminal law or hang up their own shingle.
I also think professional responsibility should be another hour or emphasized more. The stuff you learn in that class gets used every day, and it ends up being the "blow-off" class to evidence and practice court students. Maybe move it up to a second year course?
Law schools lie. They all say they train the elite, but realistically, only a fraction of all graduates will be partners at large firms. The rest of us will grind it out somewhere else. The only class that could train you for that is Changing Your Expectations 101, or perhaps Advanced Coping With Your Choices.
I spent more money on my legal education than I will make before I am 35. I am 26 now. I think my work is important and fulfilling, but lately I wonder if that's not just a lie I tell myself to justify waking up.
It's hard doing a job well that people don't respect. It's hard to motivate yourself to care with the thought that "oh this is noble." Now I see why so many prosecutors end up sounding like zealots: gotta have something to keep you going.
What happens when you're too self-aware to deceive yourself?
I spent more money on my legal education than I will make before I am 35. I am 26 now. I think my work is important and fulfilling, but lately I wonder if that's not just a lie I tell myself to justify waking up.
It's hard doing a job well that people don't respect. It's hard to motivate yourself to care with the thought that "oh this is noble." Now I see why so many prosecutors end up sounding like zealots: gotta have something to keep you going.
What happens when you're too self-aware to deceive yourself?
It'd be even worse if the "worst" weren't as well trained for general practice. If the system has to fail for anybody, the top of the class can handle it better.
What I can't understand is despite years and years of reports about Biglaw associates being so overworked and so unhappy compared to the rest of the profession, there are people who still aspire to work 80 hours a week doing document review for a huge law firm just so they can make $160k a year. I mean, is the money really that enticing? I guess I just don't see it. Maybe I'm missing something.
Okay... even if you make great grades and all you want in life is the big firm job - do folks really want to take a course in document review?
I don't think the traditional first-year curriculum should be changed. I think it's a good thing.
In my law school student experience, the moment when I realized that---to some extent---the courses are artificially broken up, that is, the moment I became aware of the law holistically was the moment I became a better student of the law. And being a better student of the law made me a better lawyer.
I've had 4 jobs since I graduated---two clerkships, one law firm job, and a government job. In every single job, I've had instances where I was a better advocate for my client because I imported a concept or doctrine from a different common law subject to make a reasoned argument why a similar concept or doctrine should apply to my client's circumstance.
Another view I have, which may draw criticism, is that the first year serves a very important weeding-out function. I've taught law school, and I've taught undergraduates. I've also been through both, and I've seen the students that are very bright and accomplished undergraduates go on to struggle in law school. Bottom line: it ain't for everybody, and the people I've known who left law school are all happy in another career.
I'm in complete agreement that every curriculum should have a third-year practical component---be it Practice Court at Baylor or a similar program for students who want to pursue a transactional practice. But leave the first year alone.
In my law school student experience, the moment when I realized that---to some extent---the courses are artificially broken up, that is, the moment I became aware of the law holistically was the moment I became a better student of the law. And being a better student of the law made me a better lawyer.
I've had 4 jobs since I graduated---two clerkships, one law firm job, and a government job. In every single job, I've had instances where I was a better advocate for my client because I imported a concept or doctrine from a different common law subject to make a reasoned argument why a similar concept or doctrine should apply to my client's circumstance.
Another view I have, which may draw criticism, is that the first year serves a very important weeding-out function. I've taught law school, and I've taught undergraduates. I've also been through both, and I've seen the students that are very bright and accomplished undergraduates go on to struggle in law school. Bottom line: it ain't for everybody, and the people I've known who left law school are all happy in another career.
I'm in complete agreement that every curriculum should have a third-year practical component---be it Practice Court at Baylor or a similar program for students who want to pursue a transactional practice. But leave the first year alone.
I've been out for 1.2 years and I think Baylor did an excellent job. I have a litigation job at a mid-big firm (60+ attorneys in my office; multiple other offices in the state). I've had banking cases where I've needed my UCC classes. I've had a plaintiff's case where I needed torts. I've had a contract, oil and gas, real estate, and health care disputes where I needed all of those substantive areas.
In every case, I've had to brush up on the law and adapt the discovery discovery requests and other work product to the facts and the law. But I would've have wanted it the other way around -- I wouldn't have wanted 12 weeks of "draft some interrogatories" so your PC partner can object to them.
I went to law school to be a lawyer assisting or in charge of a case who has to think about the law and draft discovery intelligently to get the documents I need to prove my case or defense. If I don't know the substantive law, I can't do that. If I know the substantive law, have gone through PC, work hard to be a good writer in everything I do, and am mature enough to ask someone for help if I don't understand something, I can draft good discovery and motions.
Along the same lines, I don't want to be a forensic computer examiner. I want to be a lawyer who knows how metadata works and hires a consultant to examine the hard drive. I then have to go through the documents, sometimes late into the night, to see what it means. Examining documents isn't great, but it's necessary. Everytime I've had boxes stacked up in my office I've found gems. It's part of the job. If I don't like it, I can do something easier and less intellectually rewarding. Or if I do a good enough job for enough time, I can get promoted to doing something else. If there is anything that the last year has shown me, it's that if I outwork the other side, most times I'll win. (By the way, outworking is not equal to adding as many people as possible. That's waste.)
While every one of the cases I've worked on has required a great deal of discovery, e-discovery, document production and review, motion, and pleading practice, I don't know how a law school would teach that or why a student would want to take a class on it.
I'm not sure about transactional work, but I think Baylor Law has considered and addressed the "law school conundrum" nearly as well as possible for litigation practice.
In every case, I've had to brush up on the law and adapt the discovery discovery requests and other work product to the facts and the law. But I would've have wanted it the other way around -- I wouldn't have wanted 12 weeks of "draft some interrogatories" so your PC partner can object to them.
I went to law school to be a lawyer assisting or in charge of a case who has to think about the law and draft discovery intelligently to get the documents I need to prove my case or defense. If I don't know the substantive law, I can't do that. If I know the substantive law, have gone through PC, work hard to be a good writer in everything I do, and am mature enough to ask someone for help if I don't understand something, I can draft good discovery and motions.
Along the same lines, I don't want to be a forensic computer examiner. I want to be a lawyer who knows how metadata works and hires a consultant to examine the hard drive. I then have to go through the documents, sometimes late into the night, to see what it means. Examining documents isn't great, but it's necessary. Everytime I've had boxes stacked up in my office I've found gems. It's part of the job. If I don't like it, I can do something easier and less intellectually rewarding. Or if I do a good enough job for enough time, I can get promoted to doing something else. If there is anything that the last year has shown me, it's that if I outwork the other side, most times I'll win. (By the way, outworking is not equal to adding as many people as possible. That's waste.)
While every one of the cases I've worked on has required a great deal of discovery, e-discovery, document production and review, motion, and pleading practice, I don't know how a law school would teach that or why a student would want to take a class on it.
I'm not sure about transactional work, but I think Baylor Law has considered and addressed the "law school conundrum" nearly as well as possible for litigation practice.
# posted by 
: 11:12 PM
: 11:12 PM
"Okay... even if you make great grades and all you want in life is the big firm job - do folks really want to take a course in document review?"
Hysterical.
Hysterical.
Lurch-- as I said in the post, I think that is true about Baylor. It is not as true at many other schools.
Post a Comment
<< Home
