Frank Snyder has an excellent post on the perils of practical legal education at his ominously named "Lawyer Apocalypse" blog. You can read it here. Making a point that I had argued here, Frank observes that very few law professors have much to offer when it comes to real world experience: "It’s difficult to take seriously 'real world' advice from someone who
practiced law as a junior associate for a year and a half during the
Nixon administration." Ouch.
Let me hasten to add that the folks who teach at Regent law school have lots more going for ourselves (and thus our students) than that. Check out our faculty profiles here.
But Frank has a more fundamental point: Just how much "reality" (in the sense of understanding the art of the deal for budding transactional lawyers) can even experienced law profs squeeze into a course in law school? I use vignettes from my over fifteen years of practice to illustrate what can go wrong (or did go wrong). I hope this amplifies the more doctrinal point that I'm trying to make but it's a far cry from performing some kind of Vulcan mind-meld and transferring my experiences into the innocent heads of my students. Heck, occasionally I go wild and teach them some advanced beginner Yiddish. But as Frank puts it, "I feel about putting more emphasis on 'business thinking' in law school pretty much the way I assume an MBA schools would feel about putting more 'thinking like a lawyer' into their marketing program. Not necessarily opposed, but rather dubious."
There's only so much law school (as opposed, say, to business school) can do. As I've argued before, the practicing bar should step up to the plate and forthrightly take responsibility for "perfecting" the legal education of newly minted attorneys. Berating law schools for not doing now what they haven't done before will only lead to more public suspicion and professional depression.
Let me hasten to add that the folks who teach at Regent law school have lots more going for ourselves (and thus our students) than that. Check out our faculty profiles here.
But Frank has a more fundamental point: Just how much "reality" (in the sense of understanding the art of the deal for budding transactional lawyers) can even experienced law profs squeeze into a course in law school? I use vignettes from my over fifteen years of practice to illustrate what can go wrong (or did go wrong). I hope this amplifies the more doctrinal point that I'm trying to make but it's a far cry from performing some kind of Vulcan mind-meld and transferring my experiences into the innocent heads of my students. Heck, occasionally I go wild and teach them some advanced beginner Yiddish. But as Frank puts it, "I feel about putting more emphasis on 'business thinking' in law school pretty much the way I assume an MBA schools would feel about putting more 'thinking like a lawyer' into their marketing program. Not necessarily opposed, but rather dubious."
There's only so much law school (as opposed, say, to business school) can do. As I've argued before, the practicing bar should step up to the plate and forthrightly take responsibility for "perfecting" the legal education of newly minted attorneys. Berating law schools for not doing now what they haven't done before will only lead to more public suspicion and professional depression.
No comments:
Post a Comment