Northwestern to Offer Two-year, Five-semester, Law Degree:
(Sketchy) details here. Northwestern will also require all students to take two new course, one in "analytic skills" (finance, statistics, accounting, etc.), and one in "legal services behavior."
Within a year I knew the workings of the NY State &Federal court systems at all levels - trial court and appellate divisions. I was also accomplished in the law library and performing legal research. In short I knew more about the practice of law than the new associates and law students who worked there.
At the time NY State, like some others, let prospective lawyers "read" for the Bar - apprentice in a firm under the direction of a partner, and attend one year of law school if I recall correctly. I inquired if the firm would consider doing this with me. They said no, in part because I was a little wild and cavalier about my outlook on life. But I think the real reason was that the attorneys were wedded on the notion that if law school was good enough for them, it was good enough for anyone they might hire.
Had they agreed, today I'd be an attorney. As such my life has taken a different path. But it strikes me that this approach to legal education is more comprehensive, practical, and of greater value to a firm and it's clients than the traditional method of three years of schooling.
Oh, and for what it's worth, I wrote a brief that was submitted to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals that was largely unmodified by the partner who gave me the assignment except for phrasing and grammar. We won the case on appeal. Big ego boost for a 23 yr old.
Speaking as someone who won a significant case by spotting a rule against perpetuities issue, I hope they spend at least some time on it.
3 years is too long.
I also don't understand the thought process behind first cutting a three-year curriculum into two-years, and then adding in non-traditional law classes (presumably at the expense of classes like evidence or federal courts).
Try being a 4 year PT program.
Ya know, I've never heard engineers say, "Senior year engineering classes are really redundant." Nor have I heard my med student friends say that the third and fourth years of med school ought to be condensed into one year.
It is thoroughly unnerving to graduate from law school and have no idea how to be a lawyer. It is also annoying to take classes during 3L year that seem to be redundant - more of the same from the first two years. My third year, I took a combination of writing courses, bar courses (corporations, evidence, etc), and those that mesh well with my engineering background (energy law). I also returned to my 3L year after having spent a year working in the legal field (first for a small business, then for a litigation firm), but still found the entire experience to be lacking.
Now, for the old folks around here... let's not forget the cost of the third year. By itself, it is approaching $70,000 at many schools - enough for a down payment on a house, before you pay interest on the loan. The question is not whether the third year teaches something worthwhile - it would be difficult to design an educational system with no worth - but whether it is worth the extra time and expense.
Great idea, but I'd make it more than one course in "analytic skills." The absence of this subject matter from law school curricula is amazing.
I wouldn't drop the 3rd year of law school necessarily, but I would require some meaningful clinical education during the 3rd year. NYU doesn't require it, but they strongly encourage it, and I think it's a good idea. For upcoming law students, I'd say to think of your 3rd year as a good, low-pressure opportunity to actually try out the aspects of legal practice you want to be doing once you get past the first few years of document review. Specialist courses, meaningful seminars, and clinics are the best bet.
Still doesn't beat that offer I saw on the back of a cereal box...
We vote to keep the third year as discussed here.
As a result, I prosecuted dozens of cases and actually had two jury trials under my belt before graduation.
One third year activity that could be added would be an actual bar review class. I realize that this would cut into Bar/Bri's bottom line but might help students synthesize practice with theory before the graduate.
I actually found my third year more useful than my second year. I hoped to practice in computer law or something similar, and so took IP, patent, anti-trust, etc. classes. I ended up as a patent attorney, and use what I learned that year far more than anything I learned my first two years.
Perhaps law school tuition should be tiered based on the amount of education one really receives - 1L is the most expensive and 3L year is least expensive. Effectively, the people who drop out after 1L would be subsidizing those who made it through, which isn't necessarily a bad idea.
http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/06/20/northwestern
I strongly agree with NU-Grad on this. When your client (&you) are about to get hammered in litigation, remembering some of those esoteric doctrines may be necessary for the type of first class representation that separates litigators from scriveners. Sometimes what appear to be over-the-top ideas win "sure loser" cases.
Along these lines, note "Blackwater Hides Under Burqa" by Sharon Weinberger (June 19, 2008) at http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/blackwater-hide.html
Sharia law as a defense in a wrongful death suit? Seems pretty over-the-top until you understand that under Sharia law a company cannot be held liable for the negligence of its employees and then start analyzing the applicable state's conflicts of laws doctrine.
Have you actually read Springer's address? I thought it was quite good. I'd much rather have had a fine speech like that at my commencement that PGA Commissioner Tim Finchem going on about stupid, pointless golf stories from his career, which was U.Va.'s choice this year.
IIRC the California Supreme Court ruled that not understanding the RAP did not per se support a claim of legal malpractice, since lawyers in general never really got the hang of the RAP.
Not that long ago lawyers got an LLB degree, which basically was a 2 year postgrad degree. Some of the older attorneys at the firms I worked at had one. What's really wrong with going back to the LLB level of education for lawyers?
I think it's cute to begin with that the undergrad law degree is a "doctorate." So I can't see any problem with shortening the time-till-graduation: It isn't *really* a doctoral degree anyway. So who cares? But what's the reason for cutting out a year of a professional degree program instead of the final year of an undergrad program if you are looking to shorten the time and money spent getting ready for the bar exam? As devoted to the liberal arts as I am, it doesn't seem to make sense in a large number of cases. (Excluding such cases, of course, as students who want to do the CPA/JD route, and who thus need all those accounting courses. And a life.)
Iowa used to have something like this--you started in May instead of August and finished in two years--but they got rid of it recently. It was designed for non-traditional students, but eventually developed into a way for people who couldn't get in through normal channels to still get an Iowa degree (sort of like Georgetown's night program).
As someone who has, within the last five years, defended and prosecuted employment claims, defended a securities class action, and defended and prosecuted legal malpractice cases, I'm not sure that's completely correct. While different fields of litigation are undoubtedly becoming more specialized, a lot of mid-sized firms have just a couple partners who specialize in a particular field and associates are expected to be flexible about the types of cases they work on.
I believe that Baylor and LSU offered that at one time. I don't know it they still do.
As someone who recently graduated from Georgetown's night program, I really must take exception with the concept that it is somehow less than the day program. My LSATs and CV were enough to get me into any school in the country. So why G'town?
1. My employer (an IP firm) offered to pay for me to go to school part time and, with a wife and children, I couldnt really afford to live on loans
2. G'town was the best school offering a night program.
3. The class was full of interesting people with diverse backgrounds: lots of PhD's, military folks, a veterinarian, people working on the Hill, in Federal Agencies, or for think tanks and charities. The number of people who were there only because they could not have gotten into the day program was quite small, it would seem.
4. Classes with the day students were, by contrast, rather dull and uninspired, and devoid of any concept about how the real world or real lawyers functioned.