NYT Op-Ed Authors Ignore Bloat in Legal Education

, The Am Law Daily

   | 2 Comments

Academics who criticize reforms that they say "skimp" on legal education should show how all the added legal educators have boosted lawyers' productivity.

What's being said

  • Bruce

    First off, the real cutting-edge developments in law don‘t get into law school classes. They take place in real time among those in legal practice. When the hot topics in communications law involved the emerging regulation of cable TV (1984-1994), law school communications courses were still teaching about broadcasting, a relative backwater, for example. I believe in the UK, post-secondary legal education is a track on begins at 18 or 19, not 23 in an integrated university program that culminates in a law degree in fewer years than the 7 required for the U.S. track. Like most law graduates -- even 36 years ago -- I felt that my 3rd year of law school had passed the point of diminishing returns. Given clients‘ reluctance to pay for the time of first year associates, a rational response would be to curtain law school to 2 years and then require every one to be a law clerk for a year or two. I think everyone would come out ahead in such an arrangement . . . except law faculty.

  • Barry

    Adding on to the last part, the percentage of US GDP for legal services has been shrinking over the past few decades. During these decades, the size, scope and complexity of US society has been increasing.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202652827575

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.