News & Updates

The 2011 Law School Survey of Student Engagement reported that 83 percent of students rated their law school experience as "good" or "excellent." Forty percent "felt their legal education had contributed 'only some or very little to their acquisition…

At the 2012 AALS Annual Meeting, former New York Law School Dean Richard Matasar urged a group of legal educators to prepare to change: "We know there are storm clouds on the horizon," Matasar said, as he ruminated about the poor job prospects facing…

I predict that legal education in general and law schools in particular will continue to be under the microscope in 2012. Some of the criticism is appropriate, and Educating Tomorrow’s Lawyers is one of the efforts designed to address that legitimate criticism. Some of it, however, is both projection and scapegoating. 

The Association of American Law Schools is meeting in Washington, DC, this week for its annual meeting, which is themed "Academic Freedom and Academic Duty." This Inside HigherEd article previews the conference, which three members of the Educating…

Scott Fruehwald at Legal Skills Prof Blog recently reviewed Contracts: A Context and Practice Casebook, authored by Michael Hunter Schwartz and Denise Riebe.

Law and business students come together for a Stanford class called "The Role of the Modern General Counsel." Led by former Apple Corp. general counsel Daniel Cooperman, now of counsel in the Palo Alto office of Bingham McCutchen, the class plunged students from the law and business schools into real-world crisis scenarios as preparation for practicing corporate law.

Another take on what legal education reform is not (Dean Martin Katz recently posted on the topic here): The purpose of a skills class, a clinic, or a course that incorporates new teaching methods is not to teach when to reply to a motion, where the court house is, or how to fill out forms, it is to better teach doctrine and how to apply that doctrine to practical problems.

In his latest article on law schools, David Segal takes aim at the law school accreditation standards set by the American Bar Association.

Change in legal education is necessary, but it will require the effort of schools, professors, students, media, and the public: The problems facing the legal profession are huge, but not insurmountable. The question is whether more law schools and professors are able to leave their comfort zones, law students are able to think more globally and long term, and the popular press and public are willing to credit those who are already moving in the right direction.

Pundits are drawn to extremes. Perhaps that is simply the nature of things. But in the debate over the future of legal education, espousing extremes hinders the discussion. At one extreme are the loudest critics of the current state of legal education. At the other extreme are the defenders of the status quo. But at its core, this discussion draws a false dichotomy between theory and practice.

The American Bar Association's Legal Education Section has approved changes to what is required of law schools when reporting job placement information. The changes will "expand the level of detail of graduate employment data law schools must report…

The interest in reforming the graduate level education experience is not unique to law. The Economist reports that Harvard Business School is experimenting with a new curriculum, "FIELD" (Field Immersion Experiences for Leadership Development), that embraces "learning by doing."

Be sure to look for Educating Tomorrow's Lawyers when the ABA Journal hits your mailbox this month. The article about our initiative notes the good timing of our launch (is there anyone committed to the legal profession who isn't interested in legal education right now?) and highlights Professor Roberto Corrada's labor relations class at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.

Paul Lippe, the CEO of Legal OnRamp, weighs in on the ongoing conversation about legal education reform: But I see the issue differently. It is not that law school is incomplete in training lawyers—which by any definition it must be—but that it lacks engagement.

This article takes a look at the growing tension between law firms and companies about who should be paying to train first-year associates and proposes solutions, including retooling law school curriculum.

Two Saturdays ago, the New York Times posted this article about the failure of law schools to adequately prepare lawyers for the practice of law.

After a controversial article last week, the New York Times editorial board weighs in: "American legal education is in crisis."

Dennis Kaw is the General Counsel for Appliance Factory Outlet and its affiliates. In his Voices from the Field interview, Kaw remarks on the need for law students to have more practical experience in law schools before entering the profession. He also suggests that law schools emulate the business school model of teaching students leadership and strategy.

As David Segal’s November 19 article accurately reflects, the legal market is changing.  Clients are no longer willing to foot the bill for young lawyers’ training, and thus law firms are increasingly looking to the law schools to produce practice-ready graduates. The good news is that there are clear solutions to the problem, and they are already in motion.

David Segal of the New York Times is again writing about law schools, this time addressing their failure to produce practice-ready graduates.