Generative AI is going to wreck the traditional methods by which new lawyers learn the ropes. What can we do? Forecast lawyers' future roles and reverse-engineer their development.
Thank, you, Erika! If I'm being honest, I have to say I consider law schools to be a massive obstacle to lawyer formation reform, and I don't see much hope that that will change markedly in future.
I set out my reasons for that belief in this article last September: https://jordanfurlong.substack.com/p/legal-educations-day-of-reckoning. But the gist of it is that (most) law schools' economic incentives and and cultural infrastructure make it practically impossible for them to participate in the reform process. Law schools do not develop lawyering competencies, and they have repeatedly made it clear that they have no interest in doing so -- they teach people the basics of legal knowledge and to "think like a lawyer," and little more. They don't want to help train lawyers, and as independent entities with academic freedom, they can't be forced to do so.
In an ideal world, that would make them irrelevant, or at least ancillary to, the lawyer formation process. But regulators and bar admission authorities have made the problem much worse by requiring completion of a three-year law degree as a pre-requisite for entering the lawyer admission process.
In the result, law schools are in the enviable position of being absolutely essential to the lawyer licensing process while having virtually no obligation to do anything that lawyer licensors ask them to do (and fiercely objecting to any such requests: https://www.law360.com/pulse/modern-lawyer/articles/1827138?). Aspiring lawyers must therefore invest hundreds of thousands of dollars and three years of their lives to advance approximately 15% of the way towards entry-level lawyer competence. It's a huge self-inflicted wound for the legal profession.
I've become convinced that the only way law schools will become a useful part of the lawyer licensing process is if regulators drop the law degree requirement for beginning the lawyer admission process (and institute a legal knowledge entrance exam instead). We'd find out pretty quickly which law schools are *really* committed to simply being institutes of higher learning, unconcerned with the petty world of law practice. And we would benefit from all the other schools deciding to be part of the solution, not part of the problem, and signing up for the reform agenda.
It's the hundreds of thousands of dollars and three years of opportunity cost that gets me. I didn't have lawyers in my family so, silly me, didn't realize that law school doesn't really teach someone how to be a lawyer. Entering the profession in the go-go dot.com era meant that I was drinking from a fire hose and had NO IDEA what I was doing. When I taught, my mantra was "teach what I wish someone had taught me."
Your thought about the requirement for law school being dropped is a very interesting one...or even limiting it to 2 years might help. Sigh.
This is why I think people who do duel degrees make better lawyers (generally speaking). Studying another discipline helps to broaden their thinking and understanding of client requirements.
Love your work, Jordan. Where do law schools fit into this discussion?
Thank, you, Erika! If I'm being honest, I have to say I consider law schools to be a massive obstacle to lawyer formation reform, and I don't see much hope that that will change markedly in future.
I set out my reasons for that belief in this article last September: https://jordanfurlong.substack.com/p/legal-educations-day-of-reckoning. But the gist of it is that (most) law schools' economic incentives and and cultural infrastructure make it practically impossible for them to participate in the reform process. Law schools do not develop lawyering competencies, and they have repeatedly made it clear that they have no interest in doing so -- they teach people the basics of legal knowledge and to "think like a lawyer," and little more. They don't want to help train lawyers, and as independent entities with academic freedom, they can't be forced to do so.
In an ideal world, that would make them irrelevant, or at least ancillary to, the lawyer formation process. But regulators and bar admission authorities have made the problem much worse by requiring completion of a three-year law degree as a pre-requisite for entering the lawyer admission process.
In the result, law schools are in the enviable position of being absolutely essential to the lawyer licensing process while having virtually no obligation to do anything that lawyer licensors ask them to do (and fiercely objecting to any such requests: https://www.law360.com/pulse/modern-lawyer/articles/1827138?). Aspiring lawyers must therefore invest hundreds of thousands of dollars and three years of their lives to advance approximately 15% of the way towards entry-level lawyer competence. It's a huge self-inflicted wound for the legal profession.
I've become convinced that the only way law schools will become a useful part of the lawyer licensing process is if regulators drop the law degree requirement for beginning the lawyer admission process (and institute a legal knowledge entrance exam instead). We'd find out pretty quickly which law schools are *really* committed to simply being institutes of higher learning, unconcerned with the petty world of law practice. And we would benefit from all the other schools deciding to be part of the solution, not part of the problem, and signing up for the reform agenda.
It's the hundreds of thousands of dollars and three years of opportunity cost that gets me. I didn't have lawyers in my family so, silly me, didn't realize that law school doesn't really teach someone how to be a lawyer. Entering the profession in the go-go dot.com era meant that I was drinking from a fire hose and had NO IDEA what I was doing. When I taught, my mantra was "teach what I wish someone had taught me."
Your thought about the requirement for law school being dropped is a very interesting one...or even limiting it to 2 years might help. Sigh.
This is why I think people who do duel degrees make better lawyers (generally speaking). Studying another discipline helps to broaden their thinking and understanding of client requirements.