Search News


Browse Archives

News

More Moral and Practical Law Schools

January 5, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Law schools need to do a better job integrating the teaching of legal doctrine with a much stronger focus on helping students develop practical “lawyering” skills and understandings of ethical and moral considerations, according to a new study from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

“The gap between learning to think like a lawyer and being capable of acting like a lawyer, both clinically and morally, is, if anything, greater than it’s ever been before,” said Lee S. Shulman, president of the foundation, which released “Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law,” one of a series of Carnegie reports on professional education, on Thursday.

The study comes at a time when numerous law schools from across the country (including Harvard and Stanford) have initiated reviews of their curriculums, and the Association of American Law Schools and American Bar Association both have active committees examining the law school curriculum, Shulman said. Several institutions are praised in the report as already moving in the direction the Carnegie Foundation is proposing, including Southwestern Law School and the law schools at the City University of New York and Yale and New York Universities.

The two-year study, based on field work at 16 institutions in the U.S. and Canada, found that law schools have proven themselves to be exceptionally successful at quickly training their students to master “a distinctive habit of thinking.” Within months of arriving, the report found, law students “demonstrate new capacities for understanding legal processes, for seeing both sides of legal arguments, for sifting through facts and precedents in search of the more plausible account, for using precise language, and for understanding the applications and conflicts of legal rules.”

But the report also found that the “remarkably uniform” approach to the instruction of these legal thinking skills -- the “case-dialogue method” -- encourages students to focus on abstractions in reaching conclusions, to consider “as ‘facts’ only those details that contribute to someone’s staking a legal claim on the basis of precedent.” 

“By contrast,” the report’s summary reads, “the task of connecting these conclusions with the rich complexity of actual situations that involve full-dimensional people, let alone the job of thinking through the social consequences or ethical aspects of the conclusions, remains outside the case-dialogue method. Issues such as the social needs or matters of justice involved in cases do get attention in some case-dialogue classrooms, but these issues are almost always treated as addenda.”

“In theory, Americans have always recognized that lawyers must serve two interests: the interest of justice and the interest of their clients,” said William M. Sullivan, a senior scholar at Carnegie and the primary author of the study. “Learning to think like a lawyer ... is insufficient as a basis for becoming a competent legal professional.”

The report lays out a number of recommendations to counteract Sullivan’s observation that instruction of legal thinking tends to overwhelm the teaching of practical lawyering skills and the role of ethical and moral considerations in today’s law schools. Among the recommendations are to offer a more integrated three-part curriculum and to encourage faculty to do work across that curriculum. Law schools need to revisit their traditional hierarchies that value the teaching of legal scholarship over more costly clinical instruction, Shulman added, in determining how best to reallocate resources.

The report also recommends that law schools should make better use of the second and third years by offering “capstone” opportunities for students to develop their specialties, complete advanced clinical training and work closely with faculty. “In many law schools, there are clinical opportunities for students, externships and different kinds of skill courses that students may choose to take, mostly electives in either the second or third year. But our hope is that there could be more of these, more places for more students,” said Judith Welch Wegner, who led the study. Wegner is a professor of law at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a past president of the Association of American Law Schools.

The executive director of the association was unavailable for comment Thursday afternoon, due to the AALS’s annual meeting in Washington.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on More Moral and Practical Law Schools

  • First Understand the Legal Education Structure
  • Posted by William Sumner Scott, J.D on January 5, 2007 at 8:00am EST
  • The problem with law school education is the lack of prepardness by all law students. Because there are no requirements prior to entry to any law school course, the professor must begin with the most rudimentary explanation of the subject matter. Good moral conduct must begin at birth - the danger of religious bigotry must also be begin at birth. Neither of these subjects are addressed either before or after law school. The public suffers William Jefferson's $80,000 in the freezer and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq without the removal of Islam as the appointed religion in their Constitutions. John F. Kennedy is assassinated and over 3,000 people murdered on 9/11 without proper investigation. The reason the problems go unresolved is because the legal profession is not held accountable for the Country's morals. Those interested should begin with the posting of the American Bar Proceedings before the Department of Labor - National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity that was held on December 4, 2006 on our website. The first step is to remove the ABA from the accreditation of American law school process. The ABA is a labor union for lawyers that has no business in the education process other than to be an advisor. Now they totally control the process.

    William Sumner Scott, J.D.

    Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.

    wss@jefound.org

    http://jefound.org

  • Posted by Larry on January 5, 2007 at 8:35am EST
  • The article is interesting, but too much “practical” knowledge can be a bad thing for a law student. Far too often law students who spend too much time in a clinic can’t think beyond the “practice” in an area. Granted, it is important to know the way things are “done” but it also means that nobody questions whether those practices are legal or efficient.

    As a practical matter, most questions of morality are part and parcel of analysis of moral doctrines as they stand.

    The report itself has many good suggestions, especially the need for a thesis-like project.

    Sen. Jefferson has not been convicted of anything, and assuming the $80,000 was a bribe, whatever harm the public suffered from it is questionable. Whatever immorality he might have, probably had nothing to do with his law school, as he has long since exited it, served in the military, and began a career in politics.

  • Law curricula
  • Posted by Alison P. Martinez , journalist on January 5, 2007 at 10:55am EST
  • This new Carnegie report sounds a lot like the ABA's 1992 McCrate report. Drexel University's new law school is putting the recommendations into practice. See our story in "The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education" December 4, 2006.
    A couple of years ago I had the privilege of talking with Dana Goldblatt, who was then in the process of getting a J.D. and a humanities Ph.D. from Yale. She found the humanities program mired in negativity, while the law students and faculty found meaning, even joy, in their work. The difference, she said, arose from the different futures awaiting graduates. The J.D.s had realistic hope. The humanities Ph.D.s didn't, because academia is replacing good jobs with bad jobs. Dr. Goldblatt traced the better situation in law schools to ABA rules and protections, and I found her ideas convincing.

  • oops
  • Posted by Peter on January 5, 2007 at 11:20am EST
  • Larry needs to do some fact-checking. William Jefferson is a member of the House, not the Senate. And did he attend law school?

  • If at first you don't succeed, try, try again...
  • Posted by Jane Robbins, PhD on January 5, 2007 at 11:25am EST
  • But try something different, maybe? This report marks nearly 100 years of efforts to reform legal education away from the case method and adversarial appellate focus toward ethics, practice, and justice versus winning. From Redlich in 1914 to MacCrate in 1992 and beyond, there has been little movement on the same complaints, reiterated almost like clockwork every decade or so. A focus on curriculum and method, a largely tactical/implementation approach that ignores the deep-rooted structural and organizational issues that are responsible for the failure of reform efforts and ultimately debilitating curricular incrementalism, is a nonstarter. Try again, but step back further and up higher. Reform starts with strategy, not programmatic recommendations.

  • Ms. Robbins was right; I was wrong
  • Posted by Larry on January 5, 2007 at 1:50pm EST
  • Sorry, you are correct. He is a member of the house. I don’t really follow politics.

    According to his bio, “Jefferson is a graduate of Southern University A&M College and of Harvard University Law School. In February of 1996, Jefferson received his Master of Laws in Taxation from Georgetown University.” He was an “an officer in the Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps; as law clerk to the late Honorable Alvin B Rubin of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.”

    http://www.house.gov/jefferson/biography.shtml

  • re: jefferson
  • Posted by policy wonk on January 5, 2007 at 1:50pm EST
  • yes, jefferson did go to law school...harvard. plus a masters of laws in taxation from georgetown.

    http://www.house.gov/jefferson/biography.shtml

    larry's singling out a black democratic lawmaker, the only dem with a corruption issue in the face of tons more gop crooks from law schools is probably too off-topic.

  • reply to Wonk
  • Posted by Larry on January 5, 2007 at 3:30pm EST
  • Policy Wonk. 1) I didn’t mention Jefferson, someone else brought him up; and 2) until I looked at his web page, I didn’t know his race.

    Yes, there are other politicans who have actually been convicted of far worse things than keeping cash in the fridge. Most, but not all, in my memory, were Republicans.

  • Not every school has ignored the cry for change
  • Posted by Erin Lloyd , Law Clerk on January 17, 2007 at 3:25pm EST
  • I am a proud 2006 graduate of one of three law schools actually praised in the Carnegie report: City University of New York School of Law. I am also proud to say that I was introduced to the McCrate Report in the first 2 weeks of my law school education in a required seminar on the legal system and legal pedagogical theory. Sound boring? It was - but only until I realized that my school was one of the few schools around the country who put into place many of the report's most important suggestions.
    In my first semester at CUNY, I was interviewing "clients," taking "depositions," engaging in "settlement negotiations." In every semester - and at least 50% of my classes - we engaged in "lawyering exercises" hands on and in 90% of my classes we discussed the ethical issues tied to the legal issues we were learning, sometimes ad nauseum.
    It wasn't until I worked with students from other New York schools that I realized how well-prepared I - and my colleagues from CUNY - were for our internships. Now, as a very new law clerk for a judge, I see so clearly how well my school prepared me to think about every angle of a legal issue. Every lawyer should know that practicing isn't about finding a legal rule for every legal issue; it's about being able to see all sides of an argument, come to creative solutions, find areas on which to agree with an adversary, know when to settle or compromise, and even be able to spot and avoid ethically sticky situations, and so much more.
    In my mind, this is a very important report, even if it does end up going the way of the McCrate, and I am incredibly proud that the work our faculty and administration has struggled for the last 20 years to do - against heavy pressure to do otherwise - has been recognized.