There's an old saying about law school that goes something like this: the first year they scare you to death, the second year they work you to death, and the third year they bore you to death.
With all due respect to my professors, I found the third year utterly useless. I had classmates that did not attend one class the entire 3L year, and they did just fine. We were all worried about getting jobs in an awful economy.
Now the Law Blog tells us that Washington & Lee Law School is replacing its entire 3L curriculum with practical things such as time-tracking, client interaction...things you actually do as a lawyer! How refreshing. I've advocated for some years reforming legal education to including something similar to articling, as they do in Canada. The broad based training these people receive for their first year out of school is, in my view, a very good idea. I think it creates a more well-rounded attorney. Of course, I am speaking as a former litigator, so I have a little of that.
A few random thoughts on this reform:
1. I think I would make it optional, at least at first. The whole throw the baby out with the bathwater approach may be too innovative.
2. What will the accreditation people at the ABA say about this?
3. What will employers and prospective law students say? There's something to be said about voting with one's feet.
4. I'd be interested in seeing how realistic the training will be. If it is garbage in, garbage out ten it is no better than the typical 3L year.
5. What will the faculty reaction be? Is this a way of cutting faculty cost by replacing some with lower-cost adjuncts?
With all due respect to my professors, I found the third year utterly useless. I had classmates that did not attend one class the entire 3L year, and they did just fine. We were all worried about getting jobs in an awful economy.
Now the Law Blog tells us that Washington & Lee Law School is replacing its entire 3L curriculum with practical things such as time-tracking, client interaction...things you actually do as a lawyer! How refreshing. I've advocated for some years reforming legal education to including something similar to articling, as they do in Canada. The broad based training these people receive for their first year out of school is, in my view, a very good idea. I think it creates a more well-rounded attorney. Of course, I am speaking as a former litigator, so I have a little of that.
A few random thoughts on this reform:
1. I think I would make it optional, at least at first. The whole throw the baby out with the bathwater approach may be too innovative.
2. What will the accreditation people at the ABA say about this?
3. What will employers and prospective law students say? There's something to be said about voting with one's feet.
4. I'd be interested in seeing how realistic the training will be. If it is garbage in, garbage out ten it is no better than the typical 3L year.
5. What will the faculty reaction be? Is this a way of cutting faculty cost by replacing some with lower-cost adjuncts?
