We have been discussing the changing roles inside law firms, and how partners in most corporate firms fall into finders, minders and grinders. The market has decided that finders carry the most value, economically and otherwise. That leads to a question. If the dynamics of law firms have changed, and the relationship between lawyers and their firms with them, should what is taught in America’s law schools change too? Law schools are the foundation of the industry. Nearly every lawyer in the country began as a first-year student at one of the nation’s more than 200 of them.
Law schools teach verbal communication, written communication, persuasion, listening and critical thinking better than almost any other institution. Those skills matter to lawyers and non-lawyers alike, and I cannot think of anywhere that teaches them better than a good law school does. I have not practiced law in over twenty years and I use every one of them daily. There is a lot that law schools get right.
The common complaint is that the curriculum remains focused on legal theory rather than practical education. That is by design. Law schools have long maintained that their primary purpose is to teach students how to think, and specifically how to think like a lawyer.
Students have pushed back on that. They pay a great deal of money and spend three years, and graduate with little idea how to actually be a lawyer. Too much theory, in their view, and not enough practice.
Professors and administrators answer that law school is not a trade school, and that they have already put more weight on clinics, trial advocacy, internships and other programs for exactly that purpose.
We will continue our look at these two opposing points of view in the next article.