Room for Debate: A Running Commentary on the News

One percent of lawyers must be intelligent and thoroughly trained. The other 99% should remain as politicians and lobbyists.

When I went to law school, there was a saying:

The first year they scare you to death;
The second year they work you to death;
The third year they bore you to death.

The cold fact is that there is a real element of consumer fraud being perpetrated by many US law and business schools, where faculty know full well their JDs and MBAs don’t average enough income to pay their loan debts without struggling. Business schools make money by putting warm butts in chairs and letting Uncle Sam help them do it.

makes a lot of sense to me...a couple of days ago i went with my wife for a medical exam. after the nurse recorded her vitals, a third year medical student came in to talk to her in depth about her situation. then he left and returned with a dr. who summarized the med student's findings. he then did the old...look in the mouth and say "ah," looked in the ears with that pointy, lighted scope, listened to her heart and lungs...5 minutes... my point....seems to be a potentially win-win-win deal for law students, law schools, and law firms in having these students working in the "real" legal world. Law schools could charge less for that final year's credit, students get great experience, and the law firms get a pretty high caliber employee...cheaply! (relatively!) seems like a "no-brainer" to me...i must be missing something here!

I disagree with Mr. Van Zandt's comment re: 80 credit hours. When I graduated from Georgetown in the mid 1970's, the average student took 32 credit hours per year, i.e. 96 credit hours. The classes were very difficult. All I did was study, and nothing else, for 3 years. I never saw any of the museums in Washington, and only had time to watch the Supreme Court once. I was very focused on taking real world, money making courses, not esoteric garbage the likes of which I see in some law school catalogs today. My diligence paid off, in the sense that I was well prepared for the work my post law school employers threw at me. If anything, I have a list of other difficult courses I didn't have time to take, and regret not having studied. Despite the rigor of my law school classes, I would have been useless to my employers, when I was young, without our state-law specialized treatises on the subjects in which I worked.

During my career, I spent about 20 years as a "training partner" for young lawyers. It was a tough job, because those kids knew very little of any use when then came out of law school, even though our law firms carefully scrutinized what classes they had taken in law school. My joke is that I've raised 2 children and 6 law clerks. At least half of those law clerks have made me very, very proud, the youngest one eventually becoming president of the bankruptcy bar association in the huge city where he practices. Now that one of my own children is preparing to attend law school, Mom-the-lawyer is no nonsense. My adult child will take all of the important courses, and skip the fluff. He will NOT simply take 80 hours of courses, instead of the 96 I expect of him. In fact, my list of courses he needs to take and master runs longer than 96 course hours. What Mr. Van Zandt misses in his commentary is that in most states, when a young lawyer passes the bar, they are expected to NOT be a danger to clients, in terms of only having a head full of mush and a sheepskin. State Bars expect young lawyers are expected to "know their stuff" in case the "kids" end up immediately representing clients, which is more and more frequently the case as America has built more and more law schools in the last 40 years, and as jobs where young lawyers can be supervised and trained become fewer. The Multistate Bar Exam is woefully inadequate as a test of whether young lawyers know the law of the state where they will be licensed. Similarly, the essay portion of the Bar Exam covers simplistic topics. So woe be unto a poor, innocent client who hires a young lawyer in a state with few if any useful practice treatises, let alone a law student who is lacking 16 hours of courses in topics which could make a life and death difference for a client, whether in terms of incarceration or financial disaster. As a former "training partner", if I had my druthers, law school would be 4 years of 16 credit semesters, with the last year entirely focused on the substantive and procedural law of the state where the student wanted to be licensed. That sounds like the Canadian Bars' procedure they call "articling" which appears to still be favored in Canada. Perhaps Mr. Van Zandt would like to do a research project on the percentage of Canadian lawyers under 10 years of practice who have malpractice claims against them, as compared to the number of malpractice claims against American lawyers under 10 years of practice.

Let's face it, everyone, including the ABA and other law school deans, knows you are right about this: "Aspiring lawyers would learn far more by spending that last year working in the legal services sector." The reason for 3L year is that it is pure profit for law schools.

In Vermont, a person can still enter the legal profession by completing a four year apprenticeship under the tutelage of an experienced attorney. Historically, this alternative methof of joining the Bar has always been available and has produced many outstanding attorneys and judges. An apprenticship may seem quaint in today's highly competitive legal world, but before one dismisses the concept out of hand please note that one of the sitting Justices of the Vermont Supreme Court and the present Administrative Judge for the Trial Courts both entered the legal profession this way. They have served the profession with distinction, as have many other lawyers practicing in Vermont today.

Great! More lawyers to rip us off! Just what society does not need!
All us non-lawyers should, in my opinion, take a class action suit against all lawyers for collusive price fixing! Why do we need to pay these exorbitant rates to get a job done!

This comment is about how this debate is conducted rather than Mr. Van Zandt's opinion. The New York Times included four debaters who are primarily law professors, and they predictably defended the current system as it is, though not very persuasively. Three of the other debaters, also associated with academia though not primarily law professors, offered critiques of the current system and suggested ways to improve it. Only one debater, Mr. Lat, is not associated with academia. He brought an outsiders perspective and different ideas.

What I'd like to know is why people who actually hire law school grads and/or consume legal services were not consulted. I think they could provide far more important insights on the current system of legal education and its graduates.

For me as for European law scholar Your question is connected with the role of the legal studiues because if we assign a specific role to the legal studies than we connect them with the specific methodhology of teaching law.

In UK, US and some other countries law studies is very close connected with the case law method and is based on studying judical decisions. And this method is connected with the training of the attorneys or legal advisers. And yes man can acquire the same skills at work. And that is why in my opinion there is no difference whether the person gets such knowledge by studying or working.

At the other hand in Europe we have continental systems of law based more on the positive role model (now both models are mixing but it is separate discussion topic). In this system the teaching mehod is based on abstract law institutions. We see our law systems as a logic systems of abstract institutions and every regulation and every judical decision has to fit in this complex system. This method is more difficult from the student perspective because it requires understanding of axiological bases of every law branch. And it requires time. That is why in continental Europe we have 5- year of university courses and after it (it depends of the country) the lawyer must also complete practical course connected with work in the attorney or legal advisor office. Unfortunetely fewer and fewer students are able to manage with this system and they demand shorter courses based on the common law method. And I thonk it makes no good for our law system becouse continental method prepare lawyers to be not only attorneys or legal advisors but also polititians (law- makers), judges, philosophers. They can not only apply the law to the concrete case but also understand the whole legal system.

Right now the last thing we need are more lawyers period. We need mathmaticians, scientists, educators and enviornmental/ climate specialists for the future. Our days of easy living are going to end and litigators will not be the answers to mankinds problems. It will be those with strong skill sets that can utilize deductive reasoning and improvisation to solve the problems that stand before us now that no persons wish to conquer. Education of any profession from MD, Lawyer or any other should be able to be completed in no less than six years of total college academic work and in some fields two years of internship and or research. But today in the United States the University business and the co opting by the AMA or the American Bar Assoc. limits the number of accepted qualified applicants from being what they want to be. Hardley freedom.

thomas mcmahon
millis ma

Someone who graduated from law school told me that: "The only thing that law school teaches you is how to look stuff up." He didn't apply himself and is now successful. Those of us with intelligence know that we could ace those '80 credits' with no problem. Lawyers already have a reputation for not knowing too much -- especially around here. Having been screwed too many times by the Know-Nothngs I've hired, I now resort to NOLO Press and my own instincts. The shysters should be learning MORE, not LESS in Law School. I have an idea: Let's drop all of the requirements and let them just do as they please ... some of them having been doing this for years and getting paid enormously for it. What a joke!!

Forget all those pesky requirements. Same for med schools. Simply haul out those demographics and GIVE degrees to X number of folks from each ethnic group. That'll getcha to that equality-of-outcome in a heartbeat. That word was 'equality'...not 'quality'.

Simple.

The American Law School is hardly the only way lawyers are trained worldwide. In Continental Europe, where lawyers are trained under the Civil Law system, lawyers go to school to study law directly after high school. Their law and "undergraduate" studies are combined into one program. Then they must complete an apprenticeship in practice with a law office before they can take the bar. Whether this is better or worse is not the issue. However, it is different and seems to work in these societies. In Canada, lawyers must also "articulate" or take an apprenticeship before they can become fully licensed. For a long time, lawyers studied or "read the law" at law offices without going to school. Whether this would be effective today or not is debatable. Few lawyers really have the time to truly mentor an aspiring lawyer clerking in their office.

Law schools can do a lot better to teach practical lawyering skills such as really listening to clients, problem solving, negotiation, electronic evidence, trial advocacy. The old-school Socratic method is not all that helpful. The "third year" should best be put to teaching some of these real world lawyering skills. A lot more emphasis should be placed in internships and hands on work of lawyering in partnership with practicing attorneys.

Seems to me we should return to the option of "reading the law." If someone can study law without attending law school and then pass the bar, then why shouldn't this person be licensed to practice law? Furthermore, basic courses in constitutional law and contract law and criminal law should be provided all students in public high schools as part of social studies, so as citizens they can know their rights and act upon them.

In this day and age the ABA should also permit JD candidates to receive a degree online as well. I agree with the ABA that schools would still need to be accredited in order to allow schools to provide this type of degree. There are many people who would like to go to law school to better themselves however they are unable to do so because they work full time. The best opportunity for this would be for fully accredited laws schools to offer extension programs through recorded webcasts or podcasts and online exams. This type of business could be monetarily beneficial to both school and student. The classroom would never be closed permitting more students to attend and raising revenues to the school. This new business line could potentially prevent the surge in tuition prices or even lower tuition costs across the board.

A far better solution would be to jail administrators who raise tuition faster than inflation. Am I the only one thinking of this solution?

Quite frankly, America has become a bizarre system where every sheep pen is guarded by wolves. These wolves talk a good game and tell us all that they are working for the good of society. But they are not, we all know what they eat.

The real question is whether we are willing to do something about it.

I agree with this article. My final year of law school was, in my opinion, worthless. I learned nothing and paid over $70,000 (private school) for tuition, books and living expenses. In order to gain some form of experience I worked as a clerk in the afternoons where I actually learned the skills I am presently using. Despite graduating from a Tier 1 law school, participating in Moot Court, maintaining a high G.P.A. and working summer clerkships, my first job at a law firm paid less than what I paid in tuition for my third year of school.

The additional $70,000 of debt has also resulted in burdensome student loan payments leaving me with less money to live on then I had when I worked at the mall in college. If I had it to do all over again, I would not have gone to law school unless I received a full scholarship guaranteed for the full number of credits necessary to graduate.

As much as I enjoy the practice of law, the present costs far exceed the benefits.

~ 2009 Law School Graduate

It's all well and good to be able to complete one's course work earlier than expected, but certain things are not being taught in law school--how to deal with staff subordinate to you but elder to you; how to integrate with others than their own peer group of summer associates; the administrative mechanics of how a law firm functions and the necessary attention to administrative detail; and a whole host of other nuances of working in a law firm. Don't tell me that their summer associate experience is what gives that education--these students are bogged down with research projects and they never get the real experience they need to make the jump from summer associate to employed associate with a JD. They're also bogged down with summer associate activities that have no relevance to daily life at a law firm. It's not all fun and games, and it's not all research and memoranda summarizing that research.

This is true for most post-graduate profesional schools, even M Div