Ken Lammers of CrimLaw broke the news. His alma mater, Washington & Lee Law School, is going radical, and he wishes they had done so many years ago when he was cutting his teeth. This is a big break in chain of law school tradition, worthy of the attention of the Wall Street Journal blog’s attention. What’s the shocking news?
Breaking News: Law School to Teach Practice of Law
The Washington and Lee School of Law is poised to turn the world of legal education on its head. The deans are announcing a plan to overhaul its 3L curriculum by replacing all academic classes — that’s right, all academic classes — with “experiential” learning.
Imagine, students coming out of law school capable of . . . being a lawyer. It’s a whole new world.
As the law school describes its new program:
Students will not study law from books or sit in classrooms engaging in dialogue with a professor at a podium. The demanding intellectual content of the third year will instead be presented in realistic settings that simulate actual client experiences, requiring students to exercise professional judgment, work in teams, solve problems, counsel clients, negotiate solutions, serve as advocates and counselors—the full complement of professional activity that engages practicing lawyers as they apply legal theory and legal doctrines to the real-world issues of serving clients ethically and honorably within the highest traditions of the profession.
This differs from Ken’s memory of law school, which he describes as “cramming 2 years of education into three years.” But breaks from tradition will naturally be met with skepticism, if not open ridicule.
Carolyn Elefant describes the reactions over at WSJ:
On the other hand, the commenters at WSJ Law Blog don’t like the program at all. A number of commenters don’t like the compulsory nature of the program, arguing that they should have a choice over the courses they take. Others say that law schools should simply dispense with the third year entirely, and let students acquire training on the job rather than in the classroom. Another commenter hopes that other law schools will follow suit, but fears that in the short run, a skills-based program could harm job-seekers’ prospects, particularly if they choose to work out of state.
Carolyn isn’t a fan of practical training either.
But my greatest problem with skills training is that there’s simply no one-size-fits-all approach and ultimately, students may have to re-learn much of what was taught. What works for lawyers at a large firm in a metropolitan area might not play in Peoria. And once certain habits are entrenched, students may be reluctant to deviate from them in practice, which can stymie change in the profession.
I think Carolyn’s points probably are the most significant in terms of developing a program that meaningful in terms of breadth and scope, and I can see many problems stemming from the fact that law schools lack a bench of practical instructors to fulfill this newfound mission.
But the criticisms, aside from the one that suggests that job prospects may be stymied by anyone doing anything outside the norm (always a truism in the law), are really more a matter of program development, fine-tuning the details, then of the concept itself.
It’s to be expected that any law school that tries to buck the system is going to get slammed. Lawyers are, if nothing else, sticklers for tradition, no matter how poorly it serves the profession. Stare decisis is our mantra, beloved no matter how bad the decision might be.
But if one views the W&L decision to break away as a throwback to the old days, when aspiring lawyers clerked their way into the profession, perhaps the stodgier mandarins will find it more palatable. Practical training is new to us, but old to the law.
I sincerely hope that the folks who have chosen this experiment listen to the critics, forge a program that addresses these concerns, because I sincerely believe that this is a ground-breaking positive change for legal education. If done right. And if not, then there is little loss since we all know that the third year of law school is a waste of time anyway. Go Washington & Lee!
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s a shame that our profession is not structured such that when you come out of school, instead of being a partner right away you could be an apprentice for awhile, work with some more experienced lawyers, maybe try some different fields…oh wait, that’s exactly how it’s structured right now.
In all seriousness, one can think of any number of positive reforms to the law school curriculum, but I do not think this is one of them. Three main reasons:
1) Work habits are something that you learn on the job and that vary from practice-type to practice-type, state to state, and firm to firm. Of course there are some basic skills you can learn, but a lot of other skills you really are better off learning on the job wherever and with whomever you plan to practice.
2) Likewise, people do different types of law. I have hated parts of the 1L curriculum because I have no interest in exploring those areas of the law, but you can make arguments that everyone at least needs to know the basics and will need to now the stuff for the Bar. But to do a required smorgasborg my entire 3L year? I worked in business before going to law school, and I have no interest in ever putting together another transaction as long as I live. If I were to get practical experience, I’d prefer it to be in an area I could choose, which again points to the wisdom of maintaining an apprenticeship system in which one starts as an associate, earns one’s stripes learnings from the guys with the scars on their back, etc.
3) Most importantly, is W&L’s plan really that we should learn practical skills from professors? I don’t want to be too harsh since the people who led my practical skills course were incredibly intelligent, hard-working, and well meaning, but those courses were far and away the worst part of my curriculum. Most people go into academic law because they enjoy and are good at exploring esoteric questions – most of my professors, God bless them, are the last people I would want to be teaching me their conception of how the corrupted world of actual legal practice works.
How would I address this problem? Well, I might first say that we do not necessarily have a problem. To a large extent our current academic training followed by an apprenticeship / associate period with a firm – the exact same model that exists in medicine, for instance – works fine.
To the extent that firms are not satisfied with the graduates they are getting or that students want to have more practical education, instead of importing a model to which, as I say above, law schools are really not suited, we might considering copying business schools and making an internship a significant component of our education. I would not want my professor telling me how to approach a criminal case, but to put in some time at the DA’s or Public Defender’s office, and in a way that is graded and an official class so I have time for it? That could be very, very rewarding.
I enjoy your writing. Many thanks
What’s interesting sitting on my side of the computer is that I hear such divergent views. Everybody brings either their own experience, or their own agenda (as the case may be). One of the strongest themes coming out of law students is that they lack the practical skills to be lawyers coming out of law schools. The law schools hear the same thing, and have been arguing about how to address the problem.
W&Ls program will no doubt be carefully watched, tweaked, criticized and scrutinized, as it should be. On the other hand, it is the first to do something to deal with the issue, and we will never improve the ability of lawyers to enter practice without taking some risks, making some mistakes, trying new things.
I applaud the concept and the effort. There are many factors that will come into play in developing a successful practice, and it is possible that it will never please everyone. But it’s a start. I hope they make it work.
Hero Lawprof Backs Practical Education
The