The better angels of our profession

With a series of articles on the law school, David Segal of The New York Times, has left a deep impression. Since the beginning of the calendar year 2011 Segal has repeatedly criticized some aspects of contemporary legal education. At a time when few lawyers' salaries are not kept pace with the skyrocketing cost of law school and student debt, he asked about the economic rationality of the law school. He accused some law schools offer financial assistance program as part of the maintenance of a grade point to be achieved, which is then facing the harsh grading curve evaporated and expose the receiver to the tuition account complete the second and third years, it seems. He challenged colleges to prove they are not a law, that schools operate as a cash cow to subsidize low-income units on campus.
But no one else in the portfolio of David Segal, the attention of the Academy as legal attracted 20 November 2011 article entitled "After law school, learning to be associated with legal experts." This excerpt gives a sense section as a whole:
[T] he three people taking notes are not students. They are partners in a law firm called Biddle & Reath drinkers, the company proceed with the transaction was completed. And they each had three years and as much as $ 150,000 for the rights.
What they do not get all the time and money, a lot of practical training. Law schools have long emphasized the theoretical utility, with classes, with differences of old, as many are crowded with post-feudal property of England. Teacher exchanges hugs chin, as Law Review article "The future is predictable. Neo-Aristotelian Praise postmodern theory of law" with titles such as rewards

In other words: "All I need to know about the law, I have not learned in law school."
For publishers have published the complete article if Segal on the contrast between the expectations of law firms and law schools a priority. "The reform of legal education," said the U.S. law schools to make significant reforms, including a major retrospective of the emphasis on legal considerations, most importantly, take action as in the case.
Law professors across the country are a fairly strong reaction to the new York Times series, in particular in the chapter Segal legal recruitment calls writing faculty and staff of the school reform law. These reactions have come in three broad categories. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross would be proud: Given the challenge of dignity and right to exist, a law professor together cover almost the entire range of emotions in the grieving process. Some respond with denial and anger. Others are actively trying to negotiate with other branches of the legal profession. The other, albeit with some degree of depression, did his best to simply accept criticism and begin to address some form of meaning, to constructively.
Let me start with the money are angry. For me, I do not think that law professors and law schools do not favor themselves at the age of students in debt, unemployed law school graduate and lawyer, said that in the garbage critics "spicy" or (better yet) a ". biliary pole" It takes a measure of the depth of cynicism - a bit selfish, really - at the time, as a failure of authors and publishers motivated "to enter law school or a relative of the last checks to be characterized. One group, two law professors less angry really think the hard times of the legal profession a single cycle. Wait a year or two or five, it's like to walk, and everything is on the way they always come back.
Count me in the third camp. The criticism is true. They bite. We all, law schools and law students to lawyers and law firms must do something. Things that should things could be better.
There are of course many people to criticize the work of Segal and colleagues. "After law school, lawyers learn Associates" has a serious factual error. Segal distorts the content of the curriculum on criminal law and criminal law. He is represented as a legal research article published in the Journal of Philosophy. The Times in its entirety seems to be the value of analytical legal reasoning may be underestimated, and thus to a certain formalism of legal practice (as the certificate of amalgamation under) to increase. But to get away with small things, much less to tee off in anger or hatred, do not pay attention to the realities of modern legal practice. Things that traditional legal services has much of its value. Together with the classical model of the lawyers, the general legal training also decreased. Immediately opportunistic and enterprising, many of our competitors - foreign lawyers, a professional not a corporation, the lawyer to understand the real urgency of age, robust mobile technology - a disappointing expectations about starting salaries and along line-up of partnerships or leave. For hours, distrust conscious customers billable. They were not hostile to the idea of ​​subsidizing the training of young lawyers that they need 90 credits of formal law school to learn.