Lawyer college references practical issues in passing. Rarely in the course of the standard law school experience will a student take a class called “Scanning and Discerning Large Files” or “ProDoc and You” or “Depositions 101.” And that’s why I took a job on top of my course load. I’d be embarrassed to get out there as a freshly minted attorney, suited up and rearin’ to go, without the vaguest idea of how basic law firm software works or what court documents look like. I’m pretty sure I’ve heard from numerous attorneys this line or some variation on it: “When I started I didn’t know what the hell I was doing.” There’s a problem in that statement.Shouldn’t law school be a mixture of theory and the practical? I like legal theory and all, It makes me feel warm and all scholarly. But I’m not here with the goal of one day telling a client about how I’ll whip out the Coase Theorem to razzle dazzle a judge hearing a dispute over a property line. I already have my arts and crafts degree, now I’d like something useful. I’ll probably hate myself one day for saying this, but part of the reason I wanted to come to BLS was for Practice Court because it provides legitimate practice.
I don’t take issue with required classes – obviously you need to know fundamentals of various legal areas. It’d be sort of hard to assist in a personal injury case but not know how negligence works. And yes, there are externships and summer gigs with firms, courts and agencies, where you pick up crucial skills. But compare that to the rest of the standard issue legal curriculum. That’s a pretty small snippet of the entire shebang.
The most common retort I’ve heard in defense of the present system is that law school teaches you to “think like a lawyer.” I can appreciate this response because it appears, at this stage, that a good chunk of lawyering is researching and solving questions to which you don’t know the answer. So, learning how to find, collect, organize and massage information are critical skills and law school teaches you how to go to the rodeo with all that. Fair enough. But these are critical skills required for all kinds of jobs. So really, maybe that phrase should just be that law school teaches you to “think like a person who is gainfully employed in some white collar job.” Let’s at least be honest with our catchphrases and glittering generalities. What’s missing from this phrase is the following: Law school “teaches you to think like a person who is gainfully employed in some white collar job AND is able to serve as a competent practitioner.”
I’ve said it once and I’ll say it a million times: The fact that the American legal education model does not include some kind of apprenticeship/nuts-and-bolts component as a mandatory part of the curriculum is sort of insane. Could you imagine a class like Contracts, where you actually draft a pretend contract? Or what about in Property – scanning chain of title for snafus? Or GASP! Reading an insurance document for Torts.
Med students are required to dissect cadavers and work as residents (even if they’re not going to become surgeons). Most teachers are required to work as student-teachers. Even cosmetologists get to practice styling hair before attaining licensure. So why is it that this sometimes hideously complex and opaque profession is one of the few that says to the world, “Well, if you go to school for 3 years, pass a bunch of classes, read Palsgraf and International Shoe and some other cool stuff, pass our big fat test – you too can represent a client’s interests in court!” Am I missing something? Could you imagine going in to see a doctor who tells you “Well I’ve never actually been in an operating room, but I’ve read a lot about them. Trust me, this will turn out splendidly.” If you do, you need a better HMO.
Check this out if legal pedagogy baffles you because it apparently baffles a lot of other people too.
Posted by WK 
Posted by WK
Posted by WK 
