Gideon at a public defender, a popular Connecticut criminal law blog, told me recently,
Whatever your professor tells you, do the opposite.
I thought the statement was slightly extreme, but I did ask him what the best way to learn was and he said, “through osmosis.” I did find this post he pointed me to somewhat interesting:
Look, law school taught me a fair bit. I won’t lie. It taught me that even grown-ups can get drunk and get in fights at local bars. It taught me that my fellow lawyer isn’t much smarter than me and will one day become really famous. It taught me that you can fake your way through almost anything.
But here are ten things it didn’t teach me:
- Nobody ever uses the phrase “black letter law“. Seriously. Lawyers who do use the phrase “black letter law†are usually laughed at by cliques of other lawyers. This is an invention of professors, I’m sure, meant to intimidate and harass poor first year students. Black letter law? Is that some Rules of Court book?
- That you will forever be haunted by names of cases, but not remember a damn thing about the case itself. Who here can tell me about Helicopteros or International Shoe or Pennoyer or Dudley and Stephens? (Okay, that last one is really cool – it’s about cannibalism). Wasn’t there a Vana White case?
- How to pick a jury.
- There is no box. Law school professors keep telling you to think outside the box. What they don’t tell you is that there is no box.
- That law review leads to document review. If you want to do real work, take a clinic or something.
- Your clients will hate you. They will think they are smarter than you. They will try to tell you what to do.
- How to deal with #6 above.
- Most judges haven’t practiced in a while, so forgive them if they make stuff up as they go along.
- Caselaw and precedent may or may not mean much until you get to an appellate court. And even then…
- Finally, no matter how long you practice or what you do, there will always be more to learn and ways to better yourself.
I would add:
1. Being really good at writing kickass legal memos is essentially useless for most lawyers.
2. How to actually DO anything.
3. That most lawyering involves the trench warfare around the legal process, not in engaging the legal process itself.
4. Your clients might not actually hate you, but they sure hate having to pay a lawyer to get what they should have already gotten but for someone else being an @sshole.
5. They will think they are smarter than you. Many will actually be correct. Many will be staggeringly incorrect. Learn to tell the difference and manage each differently.
6. That practice sucks. Big time. And all lawyers can be divided into three categories: 1) sociopaths for whom this is the best outlet for their talents, 2) Depressed alcoholics who can’t escape, 3) Lawyers biding their time until they can escape into something better, or until they slide into the second category.
7. That to escape practice, you have to have practiced semi-successfully for a few years without becoming a sociopath or depressed alcoholic. (see above)
8. It’s amazing how much basic stuff judges get wrong.
9. That unrepresented litigants are an enormous pain in the @ss, and who will occasionally kick your ass, Mr. Smartypants-twohundreddollarsanhour Lawyer.
10. That you will spend more time worrying about billable time than about law.
Totally agree with the post and the reply. Very funny and true.
I recently reflected, as I sat staring at a screen, “wow, i never envisioned doing this when i was in law school!”
Not that i have it bad or anything – just law school also doesn’t teach you contract drafting (maybe a legal drafting course does, but that’s too theoretical anyways) or client managment (i.e. how to deal with expectations, etc.)
wow, what a great post and comments. With respect, i beg to differ with 4. “..there is no box” –
Yes, there is. It’s the one that law school professors live in.
What needs to happen is law profs need to explain the following to 1st year law students:
“(1) A law degree is not necessary for becoming a lawyer, although it may be quite useful in becoming a judge or judicial clerk, and is definitely necessary for becoming a law professor.
(2) You are not being asked to obtain a law degree so as to use what you learn during your studies within your practice; you are being asked to obtain a law degree to help justify the professional status of lawyers. Lawyers, as members of the professional class, command unusual prestige and economic power – this professional status is linked to the perception of expertise that used to generally come with a university education. It’s all part of the package. There’s also a certain amount of doctor-envy involved…
(3) The law societies, as insurers to the legal profession — er, I mean, as protectors of the public, won’t admit you before you can demonstrate at least a passing competency in actual practical legal knowledge in those areas where you’re most likely to screw up.”
I’m starting the PLTC next week, and look forward to learning what the Law Society of BC thinks it’s important that I know. I’m wondering if it will be closer to what I’ve learned as an articled student (and before that as a paralegal).
Tim: In many jurisdictions, including Ontario, a law degree is required before you can be licenced as a lawyer.
Okay, it’s news to me that there are jurisdictions where a law degree is not required before one can be licensed as a lawyer – and I’ll bet I’m not the only non-lawyer who’ll be surprised to hear that.
Which jurisdictions are those, pray tell?
Whoops – I meant that figuratively, not literally. Yes, a law degree is necessary, as in prescribed or requisite. It is not necessary, as in essential.
To Tim B: Huh??
from Encarta Dictionary:
requisite: necessary or appropriate for a specific purpose (formal)
the requisite skills for the job
– something essential: something that is necessary or indispensable
Holy pedantic Marnie! Do you not know what Tim means? Yes? Then maybe get off your really high Encarta and let it go!