Update: I don’t usually think that my snarkier posts are so obtuse as to be confusing, but apparently I was wrong about this one. On Adjunct Law Prof Blog, this post was taken to be “advertising” for a adjunct professor position. I left them a comment that they may (ahem) have missed the point of the post, but since they moderate comments over there, it has yet to show up. now appears and addresses any confusion. In any event, let me be clear that this was not a solicitation for an adjunct lawprof job. Now if anybody needs a full prof…
_____________
These are not words that are likely to be spoken by me. Not because I wouldn’t want to teach law students (as Bennett calls me the frustrated professor), but because no law school would hire the likes of me.
My criminal defense brethren and sistren don’t understand why I bother posting about law schools, students and profs. It’s a subject that interests me more as I age (mellow?) because the coming generations of lawyers and judges need to be prepared to fulfill the promises that people like me and those before me fought for. I am concerned that a vital group of lawyers will be understaffed, unprepared and unwilling to walk into the well of a court and fight.
At prawfsblawg, Eduardo Penlaver asks why law schools and lawyers are so obsessed with ratings of law schools and law firms. We’re not. You are. Real lawyers couldn’t care less, because the day after you graduate, no one gives a hoot where you went to school. The only question is whether you can produce. Unless, of course, you are hired by Biglaw to be a perpetual law clerk at $190k a year, while PDs try cases and hope to make $60k if funding comes through.
At Moneylaw, Jeff Harrison defends his bipolar position that he would never hire anyone who thinks his Harvard degree was his most valuable asset, while admitting that he’s busy hiring Harvard grads because they are “intellectually curious.” Hey, I’m intellectually curious. But I work for a living.
There are a few things I could teach law students. Not only do I have a passing familiarity with the basic crimlaw curriculum, and an interest in the theory underlying them, but I can tell them where the bodies are buried. And how we bury the bodies. And why. I can instruct them how to represent a client, and how to try a case. Frankly, there aren’t too many Harvard grads toiling in the wells with me.
Publishing seems to be the key for professors. But I’m a working stiff. No ivory tower office to ponder the imaginary Ministry of Magic, or to do empirical studies on what judges where under their robes. Worse yet, I know too many judges, and know too well that they aren’t thinking about how to promote some theoretical stance, unless then have at least 4 revolving law clerks to help them. The rest are too busy just trying to make it through their day and decide the cases before them.
So yes, I want to teach law students how to be lawyers. I would be happy to publish too, but it would have to be about something that made a difference, rather than some law review article that no one save some other professors would bother to read. While the scholars can enjoy a decent circle jerk, law schools could use a few people who want to teach kids to represent real people and produce work that may actually do some good for someone.
Is there any law school out there that would actually want this? I certainly won’t help your rankings in U.S News and World Reports (or any other ranking that one can google), and it’s unlikely that my presence will bring worldwide recognition to your school. But your students will learn something. Your students will be engaged in what I have to tell them. Your students will finish the class better off then when they started. You remember students, don’t you? And I didn’t go to Harvard. I’m just a lawyer.
If you’re interested, let me know. I’ll be checking the mailbox.
_____________
These are not words that are likely to be spoken by me. Not because I wouldn’t want to teach law students (as Bennett calls me the frustrated professor), but because no law school would hire the likes of me.
My criminal defense brethren and sistren don’t understand why I bother posting about law schools, students and profs. It’s a subject that interests me more as I age (mellow?) because the coming generations of lawyers and judges need to be prepared to fulfill the promises that people like me and those before me fought for. I am concerned that a vital group of lawyers will be understaffed, unprepared and unwilling to walk into the well of a court and fight.
At prawfsblawg, Eduardo Penlaver asks why law schools and lawyers are so obsessed with ratings of law schools and law firms. We’re not. You are. Real lawyers couldn’t care less, because the day after you graduate, no one gives a hoot where you went to school. The only question is whether you can produce. Unless, of course, you are hired by Biglaw to be a perpetual law clerk at $190k a year, while PDs try cases and hope to make $60k if funding comes through.
At Moneylaw, Jeff Harrison defends his bipolar position that he would never hire anyone who thinks his Harvard degree was his most valuable asset, while admitting that he’s busy hiring Harvard grads because they are “intellectually curious.” Hey, I’m intellectually curious. But I work for a living.
There are a few things I could teach law students. Not only do I have a passing familiarity with the basic crimlaw curriculum, and an interest in the theory underlying them, but I can tell them where the bodies are buried. And how we bury the bodies. And why. I can instruct them how to represent a client, and how to try a case. Frankly, there aren’t too many Harvard grads toiling in the wells with me.
Publishing seems to be the key for professors. But I’m a working stiff. No ivory tower office to ponder the imaginary Ministry of Magic, or to do empirical studies on what judges where under their robes. Worse yet, I know too many judges, and know too well that they aren’t thinking about how to promote some theoretical stance, unless then have at least 4 revolving law clerks to help them. The rest are too busy just trying to make it through their day and decide the cases before them.
So yes, I want to teach law students how to be lawyers. I would be happy to publish too, but it would have to be about something that made a difference, rather than some law review article that no one save some other professors would bother to read. While the scholars can enjoy a decent circle jerk, law schools could use a few people who want to teach kids to represent real people and produce work that may actually do some good for someone.
Is there any law school out there that would actually want this? I certainly won’t help your rankings in U.S News and World Reports (or any other ranking that one can google), and it’s unlikely that my presence will bring worldwide recognition to your school. But your students will learn something. Your students will be engaged in what I have to tell them. Your students will finish the class better off then when they started. You remember students, don’t you? And I didn’t go to Harvard. I’m just a lawyer.
If you’re interested, let me know. I’ll be checking the mailbox.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You’re in good company, Scott. Gerry Spence tried to become a clinical law professor some years ago and was refused. Just didn’t fit in with all that experience I guess.
Funny thing about Spence, it was my law school. Of course now the administration has learned the error of their ways and have him at the law school for just about anything they can. They also refused to admit his son. Probably not the smartest move.
This will change. It has to because the paying customer, yes, the student, will demand it. The holdouts, the commitee members, those tenured professors who have not been engaged in the practice of law since tuition was affordable, hold the publication criteria out like a necklace of garlic to keep the ‘practicing’ attorneys outside the hallowed halls. But it will change.
What’s up with the reference to Harrison’s dead on take on law school hiring. I think it’s pretty clear that he steers clear of elitist becaue he has found them dull, not intellectually curious. Are you yet another person who finds his stance threatening?
If you read more slowly, I think the answer will be clear. Considering that I agree with his non-elitist position, your rush to suggest that I might find his stance threatening suggests that you’re a bit belligerent on the issue. Sorry, but you’ve come to the wrong place to fight.
That said, I think Jeff’s post yesterday finally clarified what I called his bipolar position. Of course, it came after this post, so it needs to be considered in sequence.
Hi: My ears were burning or, actually, someone told me I was the subject of a comment. No problem, nice blog. Maybe if you work your end of this and I keep whining we might change a mind.
Are you kidding? You and Jim Chen are my two heroes. It’s not easy to buck the trend in the ivory tower, but you’re doing great things.
Trust me when I tell you that all real lawyers (which by definition leaves out the elitists) agree with you and strongly support your position. Keep up the great work.