Room for Debate: A Running Commentary on the News

Proposals to reduce the standard three-year law school model seem to presume that all students would benefit from an accelerated legal education program. To be sure, reducing the costs of legal education is an important goal. But for many students, if not most, decreasing the number of years spent in law school could lead to lost opportunities or, worse, detrimental results.

The traditional three-year model should be thought of as an investment in time spent toward, among other things, learning, understanding and critiquing doctrines, acquiring and practicing legal analytical and writing skills, and gaining exposure to the varied social, economic and political factors that shaped the law. The current model also enables students to explore different types of legal practice (law firm, government work, nonprofit or in-house), learn ethical lawyering through clinics or internships, develop mentor/mentee relationships with professors, and enroll in courses that examine areas of the law in which they do not intend to practice but nevertheless deepen their understanding of the law and their role as lawyers in society. It would be difficult to offer similar opportunities to students under an accelerated program.

Indeed, decreasing the number of years spent in law school might have a negative impact on nontraditional students. These include working students, individuals who have been out of school for a significant number of years, students with families, individuals with various educational or cultural disadvantages, and people with disabilities.

For many of them, three years (if not more) in law school affords them the time to learn the law at a steady pace, transition to new careers or be able to work and attend school at the same time. Notably, the traditional model may be more ideal than a reduced program for preparing many of these students for their state bar examinations, the primary way of obtaining a license to practice law in the U.S. Thus, changing the current paradigm could ultimately be counterproductive and more costly for many students.

Ultimately, the question about reducing the cost of legal education should be less about its length but rather its quality. Law schools must put greater emphasis in developing and strengthening programs that would help law students become engaged and ethical lawyers. These include increasing the availability of skills-based courses, clinical and internship programs, enhanced academic support and mentoring services, providing more mentoring and offering more interdisciplinary courses. By enhancing the traditional model instead of radically changing it, many law students might just view their legal education as an important investment in time and money.