Susan Cartier Liebel at Build a Solo Practice points out a survey by The National Jurist that tells us that the things that law students want are a little different than the things that lawprofs want out of a law school. Well, there’s a shock.
Does anybody but Jim Chen notice that the gap between what law schools are supposed to do and what the schools are seeking to do is growing? If you make an effort to stay on top of the things that lawprofs are concerned with, versus what people who have a slim sense of reality about the future of the legal “profession” (and I use that word cautiously), you can’t help but recognize that law schools have gone way down a path where they are no longer connected to a mission that has anything to do with preparing students to become lawyers.
Who supports this direction, other than the law schools themselves? Apparently, Biglaw does, for they seek out the handful of students from the grandest of the grand law schools and pay them salaries and bonuses (and extra bonuses) that bear no relation to any skills, competence or services. Somehow, Biglaw convinces themselves (and their corporate clients) that paying some kid who knows zip about the law more money per hour than the multinational CFO gets is a sound business practice.
But that still leaves the vast majority of law students at all those embarrassingly lower tier schools out in the cold. These schools, like the grandest of the grand they hope to emulate and, if the stars align, join in the U.S News and World Reports rankings so that they too can puff out their tweed-covered chests and speak in scholarly tones, have no reason to exist. They can’t get their grads into Biglaw, but still fail to teach their students how to be lawyers.
And so Susan has inspired me to come up with an entirely new concept in law schools: The Practical Law School. I plan to name it “Scott’s Law School.” It will have more buildings than any other law school in the world. Each of my buildings already exists and has the word “courthouse” in its name. My lawprofs will be forbidden to publish in law reviews, because no one except other lawprofs read them anyway. All scholarly publications will have a caption on them and be submitted to a judge for “peer review.”
Students won’t be required to send in LSATs for admission. They need only show up on a daily basis, dressed appropriately for ourcourtrooms classrooms, and meet the established criteria for paying attention, answering questions when asked and keenly observing what happens around them. A lecture will be held daily over the lunch break where they will be expected to discuss how to win a case. If they can find their way to the courtroom without getting lost while holding a heavy briefcase, they get an A for year 1. By year 2, they should be able to figure out how to win a case. Year 3 will be crunch time. The students must demonstrate mastery of dealing with clients, judges and adversaries and be capable of developing a strategy that serves their clients needs. Students can specialize in Year 3 through the use of going only to specific buildings, floors and courtrooms where particular areas of law are practiced.
There will be no tuition for my law school. But if you can’t cut it, or act obnoxiously or unethically, I’ll know right away and the student will be sent packing. It won’t be easy to make it through Scott’s Law School, but at the end, you will be able to be a lawyer.
And by the way, we won’t have any department to help you get jobs. If you were any good at Scott’s Law School, you won’t need one.
Does anybody but Jim Chen notice that the gap between what law schools are supposed to do and what the schools are seeking to do is growing? If you make an effort to stay on top of the things that lawprofs are concerned with, versus what people who have a slim sense of reality about the future of the legal “profession” (and I use that word cautiously), you can’t help but recognize that law schools have gone way down a path where they are no longer connected to a mission that has anything to do with preparing students to become lawyers.
Who supports this direction, other than the law schools themselves? Apparently, Biglaw does, for they seek out the handful of students from the grandest of the grand law schools and pay them salaries and bonuses (and extra bonuses) that bear no relation to any skills, competence or services. Somehow, Biglaw convinces themselves (and their corporate clients) that paying some kid who knows zip about the law more money per hour than the multinational CFO gets is a sound business practice.
But that still leaves the vast majority of law students at all those embarrassingly lower tier schools out in the cold. These schools, like the grandest of the grand they hope to emulate and, if the stars align, join in the U.S News and World Reports rankings so that they too can puff out their tweed-covered chests and speak in scholarly tones, have no reason to exist. They can’t get their grads into Biglaw, but still fail to teach their students how to be lawyers.
And so Susan has inspired me to come up with an entirely new concept in law schools: The Practical Law School. I plan to name it “Scott’s Law School.” It will have more buildings than any other law school in the world. Each of my buildings already exists and has the word “courthouse” in its name. My lawprofs will be forbidden to publish in law reviews, because no one except other lawprofs read them anyway. All scholarly publications will have a caption on them and be submitted to a judge for “peer review.”
Students won’t be required to send in LSATs for admission. They need only show up on a daily basis, dressed appropriately for our
There will be no tuition for my law school. But if you can’t cut it, or act obnoxiously or unethically, I’ll know right away and the student will be sent packing. It won’t be easy to make it through Scott’s Law School, but at the end, you will be able to be a lawyer.
And by the way, we won’t have any department to help you get jobs. If you were any good at Scott’s Law School, you won’t need one.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think you just described the old Inns of Court – the way English lawyers were trained for hundreds of years – never mind the way Abe Lincoln learned his craft.