The Boston Globe has a piece on Harvard Law's new first-year curriculum, which is going to include some unspecified emphasis on international and comparative law. The article quotes Prof. Martha Minow: "So we are making a strong statement that legal education ought to reflect the problem-solving, prospective, constructive, legislative, comparative, and international work that is central to law today." I wonder whether it's true that "comparative and international work" is "central to law today." I've written a lengthy comparative piece on expert evidence, so I'm certainly not averse to such work, but I don't recall a single American decision on expert testimony that cites a foreign legal opinion. As a practical matter, I wonder whether even Harvard Law graduates frequently encounter international and comparative issues in their practice, other than international matters that are really "domestic foreign" matters they wisely hand off to attorneys in the relevant country. Any thoughts from recent grads?
The Importance of International and Comparative Law to Legal Practice: