Law students typically leave the classroom without any real understanding of how to behave in a courtroom, how to communicate with a client, how to engage a jury, or how to conduct the business of law in the real world. As a result of the technological revolution, it isn’t enough for newly-licensed attorneys to know the leading cases, to analyze the theories of legal precedent, and to be ready to debate the issues in the major areas of law practice. Yet, the study of legal analysis and legal doctrine continues to be the prevailing method in the majority of accredited law schools.
Law school-sponsored clinics offer opportunities for law students to experience aspects of actual practice under supervision, but even clinics do not offer the type of practical instruction needed to conduct oneself before a real judge or a jury in a real courtroom. Practical learning for the beginning lawyer shouldn’t need to be on the job.
In reaction to this trend, the American Bar Association has adopted a new accreditation standard requiring law schools to mandate at least six hours of “experiential courses,” through clinics, simulations, or externships.
In an article in the May/June issue of The Pennsylvania Lawyer, Gary S. Gildin, professor and interim dean of Penn State’s Dickinson Law School, goes a bit further as he considers four new features (which he terms “demands”) of the 21st century legal marketplace to which law school curricula need to respond in order to adequately prepare tomorrow’s attorneys.
https://dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Gildin-Practice-Ready-Legal-Education.pdf
First, he writes, private clients are not as ready in the current economy to subsidize on-the-job training for newly-licensed attorneys. Second, due to the changing landscape of the legal profession, job placements are not as limited to private vs. public practice and rather, have become ever more specialized within corporations. Third, because of the availability of the internet, even small companies have global concerns, requiring more knowledge in transactional and international law. Fourth, because American and foreign companies continue to operate in the shadows of economic recession, lawyers must provide legal counsel in the most cost-effective ways, incorporating knowledge in law-related areas such as finance and project management.
Far from recommending total abandonment of the traditional curriculum of legal analysis and legal theory, however, Gildin advocates the teaching of foundational practical skills alongside the study of analysis and legal doctrine at the onset of classes even for first-year students. Bravo, Dean Gildin. How valuable it is to recognize that experiential legal education is as essential to a newly-licensed attorney as analysis of the basic core subjects.
When I was in law school, there were few practical courses offered. In fact, I can recollect only two: Appellate Advocacy and Trial Practice. In these courses, we learned to craft arguments, cross examinations, and summations, but unless you already knew how to modulate your voice, make eye contact, move with purpose to illustrate a point, and communicate a message, you had very little time to perfect these things. Because I was a professional actor when I was in law school, I had already mastered these skills and I was all too happy to exercise my teaching and directing skills with my fellow classmates who were struggling.
As law schools consider how best to fulfill the ABA’s experiential learning requirement, I hope they will turn to offering courses and seminars in basic, practical performance skills. It is one thing to say “make eye contact,” and it is quite another to demonstrate to a beginning law student how to actually do it.