Why Law School Is for Everyone
Law isn't as exclusive as it seems
Frank H. Wu practiced law in San Francisco. He has taught at Howard, Michigan, Columbia, Maryland, and George Washington universities, and served as dean at Wayne State.
According to consensus, it is the rare person who enjoys the Socratic method of the One-L experience. Most people would be less than enthusiastic about studying the holding and dictums of Pennoyer v. Neff, the civil procedure opinion that has puzzled generations of lawyers, and the same goes for equally celebrated cases in contracts (the damage of the "hairy hand"), torts (Mrs. Palsgraf's accident), property (the fox hunt ended prematurely in Pierson v. Post), and criminal law (the reluctant cannibals Dudley and Stephens). Nobody wishes to see too many of us initiated into the adversarial processes of litigation. Although that skepticism is understandable, it is based on an impression of lawyers and the legal system that is as false as it is popular.
The average viewer of L.A. Law or Boston Legal might well conclude that lawyers are all about sarcasm, expensive cars, fancy suits, affairs with colleagues, and the occasional trial—which starts the day after the allegations arise. So much for reviewing documents, performing research, closing deals, confronting ethical dilemmas, and billing delinquent clients.
Yet in reality, legal reasoning demonstrates the power of rational thought. Law encompasses all conceivable issues, ranging from the future of the environment and the regulation of the Internet to the response to terrorism.
The practice of law is crucial to our lives together. A diverse society flourishes only if its members respect different opinions and make mutual commitments to public discourse for resolving disputes. Democracy follows, and constantly improves upon, a set of shared principles. The complexities of our global economy require a robust legal culture that recognizes contracts, protects human rights, and is overseen by an independent judiciary.
Within that context, lawyers work on everything from the most significant financial transactions to the most contentious child-custody fights. As members of a service profession, they are the essential interpreters who transform the messy stories of their clients' lives into the compelling evidence that will win juries over to their side. Perhaps the most difficult aspect of their jobs is to represent another individual, giving voice to someone else's cause.
Lawyers must be more than merely lawyers. More than ever before, they need to blend analysis of legal doctrines with skills from accounting or physics or foreign languages. Hence, the trend toward lawyer-doctors, lawyer-engineers, lawyer-businesspeople, and so on.
Students have been ahead of their teachers for some time. They have long been coming to law school planning to adapt their training to myriad pursuits. They benefit from their ability to interpret a statute, even if they end up opening a restaurant.
Light for all. It is time for the institutions to adjust, offering new specializations, clinical opportunities, and appropriate placement services. Professors are realizing that they ought to cultivate multiple intelligences, not limited to the technical logic of analogizing and distinguishing precedent and hypothetical fact patterns. They see that the Juris Doctor program at its best continues the well-rounded liberal arts curriculum, presenting an array of intellectual challenges.
There is no typical law student. As many law students matriculate straight from college as enter after having taken a break in their formal education. Some have aspired to be advocates since they were children and became determined to right the wrongs they had witnessed; others happened to do well on the LSAT taken on a whim.
Whether they ever appear in court or draft a will, they will have been well served by learning how to stand up and speak out. They have been inspired by a sense of civil rights as well as civic responsibilities. They are ready to become leaders.
Reader Comments
The joker from the 3rd tier
The joker who claims to have graduated from the 3rd tier at the top of his/her class proves his own point. He leaves a very conclusory analysis which is not supported by actual facts. He claims that 75% of his class is unemployed and has no job prospects in the future. Wow, so now he can predict the future. I really hope whatever "law school" he went to shuts its doors to everyone. They shouldn't be teaching future lawyers to make conclusions not supported by fact. And, I am sure he is not making much more that $50K a year if he is from a third tier and this is turning him into a salty soul in denial...claiming he did such great networking and was fortunate enough to land a GREAT job. Very comical read.
What a joke...
I wish people would stop encouraging kids to go to law school (which is exactly what this author, although indirectly, is doing). Being a lawyer is not glamorous. A JD is not your ticket to $160k a year and lifetime of wealth. The fact is, there are too many low-ranked schools pumping out too many graduates with $150k in debt destined to make $40k a year. Why? Partly because the LSAT requires no specific knowledge, college grads don't need any specialized knowledge to score well, and many law schools accept kids with TERIBLE undergrad records. But more importantly, many low-ranked schools report that 90% of their students are employed at graduation at around $100k a year each. Although UNTRUE, these schools post this data in order to lure kids into paying $50k a year for a worthless education; like any business, they want to make money. This is boarderline fraud, in my opinion.
I recently graduated from a 3rd-tier law school. Luckily, I graduated near the top of my class, was on law review, did a lot of networking while in school, and landed a great job before graduating. Unfortunately, I'm the exception and not the norm. More than 75% of the kids I went to school with have no job prospects now or in the foreseeable future. They all have incredible amounts of student loans they must pay, and no guarantee that they'll secure a job that will allow them to do so comfortably. This is the story all over the country.
Some serious changes must be made, both in terms of law school admissions and funding. We must make it more difficult to get into law school in the first place (much like medical school). And we must restrict federal funding for law students. With seeminly unlimited access to private loans for most applicants, there's nothing to stop law schools from charging $50k or $60k yearly.
Wrong culprit
The commenters who complain about law school being an expensive scam industry are correct but only in a very narrow sense, and not at all in the sense Frank Wu laid out. Re the shameful costs of school, that isn't a problem with the law, it's a problem with capitalism. It should be glaringly apparent right now that turning ANYTHING into an "industry" dehumanizes it. Not so bad for mining and heavy metal manufacture, but when it's a human service like healthcare, education, and/or.... law? Mr. Wu does not express his economic preferences, but I appreciate that he is correct -- law *does* touch on all our lives. I personally don't envision myself EVER working in a law firm or office, but as an advocate in an underprivileged community, a principal in a non-profit, someone who can help with wills, deeds, trusts, land filings, anything we all might typically do in the course of a life? Absolutely.
If law SCHOOL is a racket, it's not the law's fault, it's the way WE have let our system become like this. A century or more ago there used to be tutors, mentors, a way to study your passion on your own, and then maybe work a little, engage in discourse, extend your knowledge... Heck, before WWII there were even hobo colleges, people who would teach others for free.
It *could* be done again. Will it be? Who knows. But it's not like an in depth knowledge of the law is to blame.
If I had one dream, it would not be that law school be simplified, it would be that the LAW be simplified. I find it hard to understand, with HUGE BUILDINGS full of law already, why we have to make more. It seems to me that relative to lawmaking, we should be putting effort into the consolidation and simplification of things, like recycling instead of manufacturing new. In the UK they put quite a bit of effort into streamlining and it totally paid off. Their systems and forms now are super easy to use and understand.
But, I would never be able to have a chance to contribute to this dream, or any other, if I don't know something about law at all.
Dreaming of Lincoln, reading by firelight....
advertisement
