Teaching What It’s Like to Work For Biglaw: Seems Like a Silly Idea, But Not For the Reasons You’d Think
According to this article, Law school to simulate big-firm environment, University of Detroit Mercy School of Law (2/5/07) will require all third year students to participate in a new Law Firm Program, described in the article as “a series of courses that simulates big-firm lawyering.” The course has been developed with input from large firm lawyers and is intended to respond to the lack of skills training in law school.
Now, you might think that I object to the program because it teaches about large firm practice, rather than solo practice. And while I do believe that a school that offers a course on large firm practice, should also have a comparable course work on solo, government and public interest practice, that’s no my main criticism. First, I don’t agree with making a course on law firm practice – either for big firms or small firms – mandatory. While students should have some skills training, they should have the flexibility to choose what skills they want to develop. Some students may want to focus on trial advocacy or appellate clinics, others may want to learn to draft family law documents. They shouldn’t be required to take a class on what it’s like to work at a firm that doesn’t interest them or that may have limited value (since every place you work is different).
In addition, (and I’m sure I’ll get flamed for this), I believe that skills and training in law school are overrated. Again, students should get some basics through trial practice or clinical courses (maybe a year’s worth), so they have a chance to observe depositions, appellate arguments, negotiate and draft documents. But beyond that, there’s no substitute for learning how to analyze a case, to pick apart and diagnose arguments and write clearly and effectively. These are the skills that you don’t pick up in practice, and that I have found lacking in graduates whom I’ve hired from schools that focus more on skills training and less on analysis and issue spotting. I can teach someone to draft a complaint, but I can’t teach them how to identify the five different issues that the complaint is supposed to address and to predict potential opposition.
But my greatest objection, really, not an objection at all, but a question, is WHY? Why is this Detroit Mercy offering a class on big law practice? While I’m sure that most of the law students are highly competent and capable of succeeding at a large firm, the reality is that Detroit Mercy is a third/fourth tier school where perhaps the top five percent, if that much, stand a chance of ever getting a job at biglaw. (again, I’m not saying that’s necessarily right, that’s just a reality). So why offer a course on large firm practice? Is it a way to gain exposure to biglaw practice? (Top tier students get that experience through summer associate positions – but at least there, they get paid for it). Is it a way to tempt graduates to take on the second-rate “contract” or “staff” attorney positions at large firms, where JDs work as glorified paralegals? (again, nothing wrong with this choice, if it’s what you want. But many lawyers in these positions don’t, they want to be lawyers, not permanent third-chairs). Is the course intended to show that biglaw isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, so that these students don’t feel badly about their ultimate career choice? If it’s not one of these reasons, the course just seems cruel, a way of exposing students to a way of life that they may want that they’ll likely never have.
Update (2/8/07 – 7:30 pm) – Readers have made some good points in the comments below, and I have made some clarifications in response.
Small to mid-size firms that hire recent graduates (they are out there) seem to most often be ventures started by former big firm folks. These people tend to want to impose at least some big firm expectations (and mindsets about hours, etc.) on their associates, but have difficulty doing so, and not just because of the pay differential – it takes time to teach people how to bill, how to leverage support staff, etc. I have no idea what the motivation for this program was, but it might make these kids more attractive to this type of employer.
On your other point, although I agree that this type of skills training in law school is mostly a waste of time, I also think that a good case can be made that this is true of the entire second and third year curriculum. Setting aside the question of what we would do with all the law professors (maybe we could set up LLM programs in something other than tax, for people who actually _want_ to study law as an academic subject), wouldn’t the students be better off with an expanded “first year” of case method courses (say, three semesters), with the second “year” devoted to writing, the traditional extracurriclar stuff (journal editing, moot court, etc.) and bar prep courses?
Paul, You make an excellent point about how small and mid-size firms can stand to benefit from some of the training provided at large firms, and one that I missed. Though I’m often critical of large firms, they do provide very good training on the importance of high quality, error proof work and not cutting corners. Though many times large firms have the resources to over-research matters, it’s important to have the ability to at least identify the universe of resources to figure out how to prioritize when you run your own firm on a smaller budget. Perhaps learning these skills will help these students succeed at smaller firms and even in their own practice (still, I don’t think the class should be mandatory).
Agreed that it should not be mandatory.
I would, though, add a little to your point about the big firms overworking files, for the benefit of any students or recent graduates reading this and maybe getting discouraged or intimidated about what big firms can bring to litigation.
In practice, a good bit of sloppy, thrown together stuff comes out of even the “best” firms. Moreover, even the better work from big firms shows a tendency to miss the forest for the trees or, even worse, relies too heavily on the research folders and that firm’s “brief bank” without thinking enough about how the law fits the specific facts of the case.
I’ve been a reader of this blog since apx 2003. And, i’ve always shrugged off the subtle slights you’ve landed on 3rd/4th tier law schools, partially because I enjoyed this site so much.
But, I find your last post offensive. I graduated from a fourth tier school, and I can tell you that the high honors you suppose on 1st tier law schools and their students are bogus. And, the contempt you have for lesser ranked ones is nonsense.
I won’t go much further, I don’t expect that I could ever change your mind, but consider this. The difference between getting into your elite “1st tier” school and “4th tier school” was less than eight LSAT points. The extent to which you suppose that lawyers generated by 1st tier school are better than any 4th tier school is controlled by two things. The criterion for admission to the school and quality of the education there.
So far as admissions go, I find that claiming superiority based on ones ability to cram through four more logic puzzles (in 30 minutes) than the other guy laughable.
So far as the quality of the education is concerned, most 3rd and 4th tier law school faculty are 1st tier starlets themselves.
Next time you make a generalized slight on the quality of a 4th tier law school I want you conjure up an image. Imagine an old white lawyer from say, the 50s. Now opposing counsel, a woman lawyer, walks into the conference room. Without knowing anything about her, he lets out a grin. He smiles not because she a woman, but because he’s got her dumb ass.
To Commenter X:
I am really sorry that I offended you with my comments, because in the game of real law practice, once lawyers have a few years of experience under their belt, I see no distinction between any schools. The factors that determine success in law, and in starting a practice are passion for what you do, determination, nerve and resourcefulness. I have worked with attorneys of all types, from all walks of life, both in practice on on listserves. I’ve received great advice from lawyers who went to so-called great schools and those who didn’t. I want to make that perfectly clear. And, your point about the minimal differences in the admission criteria between top and bottom schools and the fact that all share excellent faculty is well taken.
When I discussed graduates who’ve worked for me (generally for short term contract positions or summer jobs), I should clarify that they were either recent grads, a year or two out of school or students. And what I have found within this population is that as a general matter, the higher tier schools, for whatever reason, produce better writers. What I did not mention in my post, is that (again, in my experience), the higher tiered schools do not necessarily produce students or graduates with common sense, good communications skills or work ethic. Believe me, I have had my share of dud workers from top schools, people who were incapable of figuring out that sometimes you need to call the court clerk to get information, or who couldn’t figure out how to draft interrogatories or explain a form to a client or witness. The latter skills are also important, critical to success as a lawyer. Eventually, everyone improves – poor writers learn to write better after seeing other briefs, and poor “relaters” learn to communicate better and gain some common sense. Personally, I think that the latter skills develop a little more rapidly than the former, which is why I’m not a fan of extensive skills training. But at the end of the day, most of these differences are short term, lasting perhaps up to three years out. Beyond that, it’s an equal playing field as far as I can tell.
However – and this is the unavoidable reality of the legal profession – is that many people do regard grads of lower schools (or even professors there) as lesser in ability. (As an aside, I remember once getting involved in a discussion among some faculty members at my law school, Cornell, who were mocking Justice Kennedy when he was appointed to the Supreme Court because he taught at McGeorge Law School. I found this so offensive, and said something like – “What’s wrong with teaching at McGeorge if their faculty are good enough to get appointed to the Supreme Court?”). The point is that our profession is dominated by hierarchy. Hierarchy explains those professors’ comments, and hierarchy explains why large law firms will turn down lateral partners who generate millions in billables but who were in the bottom half of their class (even at a top school!). And hierarchy is why large firm lawyers look down on solos and can’t understand that any of us are competent or why we would choose the solo option. Those are just some of the realities of the legal profession and I accept them. I’ve got too many important things to do to try to change “what is,” I’d rather just find a better path.
Also, as I’ve said many times on this blog, big law is not the be all and end all of the legal profession. Big law gets too much attention to begin with, which is why I started my blog in the first place. Who cares if big law doesn’t hire people from lower schools? The legal profession is one of the greatest places for equal opportunity success, and anyone from any school can find it, particularly by starting a firm.
To all my readers, (including the one who left the comment) please do not let this drive you away from my blog. I celebrate solo and small firm lawyers from all backgrounds, all walks of life and all law schools. And I truly value all of my readers, and am humbled by the opportunity to be part of your reading repertoire.
Re the 1st tier law school vs. “lesser” tier debate, this lurker offers the following two cents’ worth:
(1) One should not CARE about what others think of the law school you went to. It’s fine to THINK about what others think, because their perceptions may well change what you have to do (i.e. since my law school doesn’t impress Employer, I could impress them with Factor B). But one’s sense of self-worth should not factor in what others’ perception of the law school is.
(2) One should not be defensive about one’s own school to the extent that it blinds you to objective limitions you have relative to others. Goes without saying that someone is always better at any given thing. The fact that an average Harvard grad can solve LSAT problems significantly faster and more accurately than me is something that I do not try to explain away- that is a real skill, with real (albeit not global) applicability in the world. The key for me, when vying with the Harvard grad (e.g. via job candidacy or litigation), is to try to recognize how those skills stack up relative to mine. That way I can accurately assess strengths and weaknesses, and plan to mitigate my areas of weakness (e.g. over-prepare for a hearing rather than be placed in several quick-thinking, logic-testing scenarios that the Harvard grad would beat me at).
http://www.law.udmercy.edu/news_events/docket/2006/summer/summerassociates.php