The Volokh Conspiracy

That's pretty much my list. For the policy/sociology types, criminal procedure can be a great class.

The only class I regret taking is professional responsibility. Unfortunately it's mandatory, so you can't avoid it. Try to schedule it at the least inconvenient time. No need to worry about coordinating with the MPRE (the ethics exam)--the pass rate is extremely high.

For litigators conflict of laws and admin laws are almost required. For transactional, I hear bankruptcy is almost required.

Bankruptcy.

The overarching functioning of the Bankruptcy Code is definitely one of those statutes that is much easier to understand when you have studied it first in class. If you plan to do anything even remotely related to business, you need to understand the basic workings of the Bankruptcy Code.

Dan

I would concur with all of your picks, and add criminal procedure. Not that most of us would ever get involved in criminal law, but I think that it is a must for practicing law. One reason is that there is always, even today, a chance that you will get stuck as a court appointed defense attorney. I remember a decade or so ago, a tax attorney here in CO refused such an appointment based on his total lack of training in that area of the law. He was ultimately disciplined by the CO Supreme Court over his refusal. It is just one of those things that comes with practicing law. Obviously, in most cities, there are guys standing in line for these appointments. But outside there, it is still possible to get such an appointment, at least in a lot of states.

Besides, you never know when you are going to run into a legal problem with criminal overtones. As a patent attorney, I have been in court a couple of times on minor criminal things, representing, for example, the son of one of my secretaries. Better me than no one.

Remedies and Evidence are clearly necessary. Of course, I am a bit prejudiced here, as Evidence was one of two classes that I Am Jured in law school. At a minimum, you need a good understanding of the ins and outs of hearsay. Both of these classes you use indirectly throughout law - I have needed both on a frequent basis even as a patent attorney.

I am not sure if all criminal attorneys need corporations, but I think everyone else does. After all, most of us spend our lives working with or for them. I didn't get that much out of the course, because by the time I was in law school, I already had an MBA. But most law students are not so unfortunate.

I would vote for tax law too. Yes, I know that you can hire a tax attorney or accountant. But realistically, it does help, at least personally, to have a decent idea of how the tax system works. Besides, again, just like with corporations, it is hard to get away from tax implications. What it has done for me mostly has been to let me know when to look for outside help. In other words, being able to recognize tax questions (and, no, I don't try to answer them).

I can't think of anything else, except, as noted, unless the prof has a last name of Volokh.

I disagree with a 1st Amdt. class. Yes, I took one, but that was because I was aiming at computer law, and saw some relevance. But I think that the average attorney can survive his entire career without one. Indeed, my father practiced 47 years and never really faced a 1st Amdt. question.

I also very happily skipped wills and trusts. Ditto for family law. One of my profs would give us all a list of the courses she thought we should all take, and it included a bunch of these. Partly, it was to prepare for the bar exam. Well, Bar/Bri did a great job there - I was able to learn all that I needed, without wasting my time on courses I would never need or use (well, I did get divorced three years after law school - but I hired a divorce attorney for that, just like I hire one for wills, trusts, and estates).

My problem in law school was that there just wasn't enough time to take all the courses that I wanted to take and thought that I might find useful in my career. I did take a couple that were an entire waste - like arbitration, but I think that was more a function of the prof than the subject matter.

Oh, I haven't seen administrative law come up yet. It was one of those classes that I hated, yet I appreciate having taken it. Of course, as a patent attorney, I have to deal with administrative agencies more than most attorneys do. But it is a different way of thinking, and the trend for a long time has been for for administrative agencies to become ever more important.

Finally, most of us hated professional responsibility, but, again, I think it a must. I just don't think that you get a true appreciation for the requirements of practicing law in the MPRE prep classes. You may be able to pass the MPRE, but there is more to practicing law than that.

I knew suggesting First Amendment would draw fire. If Constitutional Law is critical and the First Amendment is the capstone of constitutional rights, it follows that every lawyer should understand the First Amendment. It is by far the most litigated area of Constitutional Law (viewing Criminal Procedure as a completely severed field now), and the potential to get enmeshed in First Amendment issues far exceeds other questions that arise in the Constitutional Law course. I understand why First Amendment is separated from the rest of Constitutional Law (the field is huge, and First Amendment issues are the most diffcult and the most easily separated). But none of that reduces the importance of understanding the First Amendment.

Professional Responsibility probably should go on the list. It probably was excluded, as were the traditional first year courses, because it, too, is required at just about every law school in the country. That said, the quality of instruction in Professional Responsibility tends to be horrific.

William -- Good question. I don't know that I have a very good answer. Maybe someone who teaches in the field can give a better shot at this. I believe that Remedies will get some coverage in Commercial Law and Creditor's Rights. A Complex Litigation class could touch on some of this as it explores various forms of class actions. I am sure there are other courses, but none come to mind this late at night.

So no one thinks much of "non-law" law classes such as history of law or jurisprudence.

Statutory interpretation.

For any aspiring litigator: Federal Courts - there is no way you want your first exposure to this stuff to be on the job when you're writing a memo on a deadline.

Admin law for everyone - Regulations are far more pervasive and have a far greater impact on people's everyday lives than statutes do.

Evidence - even if you're sure you're going to be a transaction lawyer, you need to understand attorney client privilege and understand it well.

Good luck finding a remedies class in today's lawschool curriculum. I fear it has had to give way to make room for what my contracts professor called "Law and the Banana"--useless electives and seminars that are what teh teachers want to each but not what the students need to take.

Does it really matter what courses you take since law school is so loosely coupled to actual practice? For example evidence. One would think evidence is a foundational subject. The problem is a lot of judges don’t understand evidence all that well. There is an amusing anecdote in Irving Younger’s book on Hearsay. Younger asked a well-respected judge how he decides hearsay objections. Simple says the judge, I just over rule all of them, and I’ve never been reversed on appeal.

I'd strike tax from the list, but only because I never took it.

I found my statutory interpretation class to be one of the most valuable.

I agree with the votes for Federal Courts or, as my law school called it, Federal Jurisdiction. I will say that an overriding principle should be to take classes with the best teachers. The whole "learning to think like a lawyer" thing sounds corny, but it's largely true. I learned the most valuable stuff from courses with good teachers, regardless of the subject matter.

Ditto on Legislation and Admin Law.

Also, if you plan to be a business attorney, a land use/local government class would be a nice addition...every business, large or small, has at least one land use issue during its existence.

Finally, I would recommend a legal history course focused on either American or English legal history. It really gives you a good perspective on the development of the law which helps you to make sense of everything else.

If you plan to practice in California and want to pass its bar exam, I would recommend taking Community Property, which is not very intuitive nor easily mastered during the BarBri course. I would skip tax, in fact, for it.

I'd drop tax and add a UCC course. I think it's much more likely that folks will run into a contract issue that requires familiarity with the UCC than that they will need to give tax advice--there are always specialized tax folks floating around when you need them :)

Unfair Trade - Whether you are litigating or transacting, you will likely run across biz torts, trademark, FTC, or sate law trade secrets.

Legal Drafting - very necessary.

These classes are all important, but does anyone else have the problem that their law school schedules them all at the same time? U Minn is awful for that - I struggled to find classes to take because all of the "core" classes were scheduled in the same time slot last semester, and the same thing happened this upcoming semester. Apparently no prof wants to teach at a time other than 11:15 or 1:25. Is it really that 9 am is too early to teach?

Individual Income Tax should definitely be on the list, even for litigators, because a lot of decisions you make in litigation (especially regarding settlements) should be made with tax consequences in mind.

I didn't see where anyone had mentioned Wills &Trusts, which I think is pretty important if you can fit it in (or whatever the classes are called at your school). It's tested on most bar exams and the rules surrounding wills especially tend to be counterintuitive.

No student should ever take any kind of legal writing class that isn't required. You're going to have to unlearn it anyway once you start practicing.

I absolutely recommend Commercial Law (but then, I would) including Articles 3, 4 &9 of the UCC at least. Possibly a sales course covering 2 &2A as well. 5 &7 will probably be covered in the Commercial Law course to the extent they need to be.

I think Remedies is important for those schools that offer it (it might also be called Equity) just because torts, contracts &property don't always do a good job explaining remedies in detail.

My experience was that trial classes and things like that were basically useless. Even my clinic wasn't very useful (but I did it *after* having worked at the PD's office, so it was very remedial IMO. If I hadn't had that experience, it might not have been). Still, things like trial techniques and lawyering skills were widely held to be joke classes at my school.

Professional Responsibility is a total joke. It is the most useless class I took in law school. You can pass the MPRE by reading through the rules of professional conduct twice. 42 hours of PR instruction (3 hour class) is just damned silly for a subject that boils down to (1) don't be an idiot and (2) don't screw your clients, literally or figuratively. If it weren't required, no one would ever waste time on it.

Legislation would be nice, it would help with statutory construction. I also like Advanced Legal Research, but I'm not terribly objective about it.

I would include crim law and landlord/tenant law, wills and trusts, and property law.

Why? Because whenever you go to a cocktail party and introduce yourself as a lawyer, someone will ALWAYS ask you a legal question about some trouble they are having. If you say, I don't know, they will suspect you are lying.

Which, actually, is not a bad idea, since I end up giving more free advice than I care to.....

The UCC's importance really depends on the type of law you aer going into. Corporations, real estate, etc. - if you know what law you want to go into, taking those classes that give you the background help. But black letter law can be learned on the job - I'd suggest courses that teach you how to think about more general concepts. That's why I'm surprised corporations is on the list, and am somewhat indifferent as to tax.

Of course, if you don't take a legislation class, taking tax helps to the degree its all statutory interpretation.

I have been practicing for 8 years and can't really recall administrative law ever entering into my practice. For that matter how useful would a class on Legislation or Advanced Con Law be for most lawyers? I also can't conceive of a legal practice where some basic knowledge of the law surrounding business associations wouldn't be useful. Justin, I disagree with your "pick classes that teach you how to think" approach. I think the point here is to pick courses that will provide a lawyer with some foundational knowledge that will useful in all areas of their practice even if they are never able to focus enough on a particular area to truly learn the black letter law. For example, yes you can always research what fiduciary duties are owed to minority shareholders but it is nice to understand things like the difference bewtween common and preferred stock before you start that task. Some people know that stuff beofre they go to law school but many don't.
I agree with the person who added T&E to the package. Even if it never comes up in your practice (which it often does for many lawyers) it's a good thing to have. I also think Bankruptcy is important for both Litgators and Corproate folk.

jailgor - everything you mentioned are things you can pick up on the job in the simplist manner. You don't get 3 years where the whole purpose of law firm is to develop yourself. To waste it providing a knowledge base that will develop anyway on the broad points of corporate law (which is a joke anyway) seems like a huge waste.

But in a way, my advice is to seperate good lawyers from great lawyers, not average lawyers from bad lawyers. I don't know whether, if you lack the skills to pick up something as easy as corporations on the job, picking it up at law school will really give you a chance to hide what are some pretty obvious flaws in your ability to understand legal concepts in general.