Informed Opinions

In the wake of the recent economic downturn and its aftermath, law schools and legal education are again the focus of intense scrutiny. Unfortunately, there is often more rhetoric than constructive discussion.

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.

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.

Law schools are being targeted by the media and by former students for failing to provide adequate information about actual employment of graduates, and for graduating more lawyers than the market can bear. Candor and market sensitivity are important, but they are effects—not causes.

When we discuss legal education reform, some of the more jaded members of our community often ask, “Why is this time any different?” They rattle off a list of dust-covered reports about proposed reforms for legal education, often dating back several decades, and wonder how we can be optimistic about the prospects for meaningful reform now. The answer is that we are in the midst of a perfect storm; one in which several powerful forces are driving law schools toward reform.

As described in an earlier post, Educating Tomorrow's Lawyers initiated a unique, far-reaching survey of 210 U.S. and Canadian law schools. Now completed, the survey has a 58% response rate. Before presenting the findings in a series of future posts, we face a key prior task – describing the responding schools and seeing how closely they resemble all schools and the non-responding schools.

In the first blog for Educating Tomorrow’s Lawyers, Bill Sullivan argued that legal education is more than meritocracy – that while academic merit is essential in the training of lawyers as professionals it is not enough. It is necessary, but not alone sufficient for professional excellence.

With this post, Educating Tomorrow’s Lawyers begins a series of reports on legal education: the what, who, and how of innovation. These reports will document the range of current innovations in the areas of curriculum, teaching and learning, faculty, and assessment. They will draw on a number of sources of data, including the American Bar Association/Law School Admissions Council (ABA/LSAC) Official Guide, but the primary source will be the results of Educating Tomorrow’s Lawyers’ new survey of innovations currently underway.