Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Really? Because based on your previous post, it sounds like you never actually did practice law beyond document review.
Turns out that you might have learned something that could have been useful to a potential employer by participating in a legal clinic where you do get to gain some hands on experience under the eye of a faculty member.
Wow you must have misread my post. But that's neither here nor there. I left law because (document review aside) it mostly involved working with miserable clients and even more miserable attorneys - many of whom hated their jobs even more than I - and were eager to exploit recent law grads struggling in the down market.
Anyway, as I mentioned, hopefully the market has improved since then; but given the glut of law schools churning out new graduates every year into an over-saturated market and the increased focus on legal technologies that increasingly usurp some of the more manual grunt-work new associates and document reviewers do, it's possible things haven't changed that much. If this is the case, my original caution to 0Ls stands - the law school gamble is risky and unless you can self-finance, take 3 years of lost earning potential and have a real passion for the practice, look for another profession.
I still maintain that law school almost entirely worthless in terms of preparing you for the daily ins and outs of law practice. Practice manuals, relevant internships and ultimately feet-to-the fire work is what teaches you the basics.
I agree with you, but the purpose of law school is not to prepare you for the daily ins and outs, it is not a trade school. Law differs form state to state and changes constantly. Except in mill practice, it is common for issue and situations to arise which do not fit into any existing procedure or prior law. Thus, the concept behind law school had been teaching people how to think analytically while applying some basic principals of law that are accepted and applied across the board. If it only involved learning the basic principals, law school could be one semester. Teaching people to think, especially to approach every issue analytically, takes years of practice and learning until the light comes on. Law school does not fully prepare a student for anything IMO (except maybe for mill practice, and for that law school is not necessary). It sets you on the course of thinking and learning that can lead to being really ready to practice law. It does not get you there. Typically 5 years of practice after law school will get you there. Some will take longer, some less, some will never get there.
Many will never need to bother and will end up in a miserable mill practice until they cannot stand it any longer and move on to something else.
I agree with you, but the purpose of law school is not to prepare you for the daily ins and outs, it is not a trade school. Law differs form state to state and changes constantly. Except in mill practice, it is common for issue and situations to arise which do not fit into any existing procedure or prior law. Thus, the concept behind law school had been teaching people how to think analytically while applying some basic principals of law that are accepted and applied across the board. If it only involved learning the basic principals, law school could be one semester. Teaching people to think, especially to approach every issue analytically, takes years of practice and learning until the light comes on. Law school does not fully prepare a student for anything IMO (except maybe for mill practice, and for that law school is not necessary). It sets you on the course of thinking and learning that can lead to being really ready to practice law. It does not get you there. Typically 5 years of practice after law school will get you there. Some will take longer, some less, some will never get there.
Many will never need to bother and will end up in a miserable mill practice until they cannot stand it any longer and move on to something else.
I agree with you, but the purpose of law school is not to prepare you for the daily ins and outs, it is not a trade school. Law differs form state to state and changes constantly. Except in mill practice, it is common for issue and situations to arise which do not fit into any existing procedure or prior law. Thus, the concept behind law school had been teaching people how to think analytically while applying some basic principals of law that are accepted and applied across the board. If it only involved learning the basic principals, law school could be one semester. Teaching people to think, especially to approach every issue analytically, takes years of practice and learning until the light comes on. Law school does not fully prepare a student for anything IMO (except maybe for mill practice, and for that law school is not necessary). It sets you on the course of thinking and learning that can lead to being really ready to practice law. It does not get you there. Typically 5 years of practice after law school will get you there. Some will take longer, some less, some will never get there.
Many will never need to bother and will end up in a miserable mill practice until they cannot stand it any longer and move on to something else.
True, but traditionally the hands-on grunt work in actually learning the daily ins and outs of law practice was something that fell on the first year associates. However, the repetitive manual tasks such as document review and certain form prep are now increasingly being outsourced, which raises the question of how much practical knowledge should be expected of recent grads vs. what should be learned 'on the job' so to speak. It seems the pendulum is shifting in law schools now from studying abstract concepts like the Rule Against Perpetuities to more hands-on legal clinics so students can learn the practicalities that may be expected of them before they even start their first job. It may simply boil down to a cash crunch in smaller or mid-sized firms who have less money to waste on 4Ls reviewing documents and need them to have their feet to the fire sooner..? However, I'd say that if the majority of law firms are now expecting practical knowledge then it's either the job of the law school to provide it or we need to be more transparent to students that they may need some additional outside studying in addition to just the bar exam in order to be job-ready.
True, but traditionally the hands-on grunt work in actually learning the daily ins and outs of law practice was something that fell on the first year associates. However, the repetitive manual tasks such as document review and certain form prep are now increasingly being outsourced, which raises the question of how much practical knowledge should be expected of recent grads vs. what should be learned 'on the job' so to speak. It seems the pendulum is shifting in law schools now from studying abstract concepts like the Rule Against Perpetuities to more hands-on legal clinics so students can learn the practicalities that may be expected of them before they even start their first job. It may simply boil down to a cash crunch in smaller or mid-sized firms who have less money to waste on 4Ls reviewing documents and need them to have their feet to the fire sooner..? However, I'd say that if the majority of law firms are now expecting practical knowledge then it's either the job of the law school to provide it or we need to be more transparent to students that they may need some additional outside studying in addition to just the bar exam in order to be job-ready.
I would be all for two or three semesters of law school followed by a 1-2 year internship. The internships could focus on providing legal services for underprivileged people, battered women ect. I did some of that during law school and you learn fast because you have to.
I would be all for two or three semesters of law school followed by a 1-2 year internship. The internships could focus on providing legal services for underprivileged people, battered women ect. I did some of that during law school and you learn fast because you have to.
Agree. I think that actually used to be the model when law was taught as an Apprenticeship, which actually makes sense too. One of my biggest complaints against our local bar association was that they didn't allow more CLE credits to be earned through volunteer work. There was a a huge need for legal aid services in the area, but it was hard to get volunteers since the CLE credits were capped at something like 10 hours. When you're an unemployed recent grad, the work experience in legal aid is great and helps defray some of the CLE expenses. Having that extra incentive to get the new grads to volunteer (for credit) would have both helped them gain practical experience AND served the community vs spending several thousand in a classroom, but sadly the local bar association was only interested in $$$. This was borne out by the fact that all credits could be earned at once by taking a several-thousand dollar cruise to the Bahamas. You can guess which option most of the law firm folks chose.
My law school provides almost a dozen clinics and practicums, so people can gain hands on experience in fields they are interested in practicing in, not just legal aid. They didn't have that many when I was a student though.
Out of curiosity, any lawyers out there know how good the job market is for someone with a bachelor's and a paralegal certification? Are paralegal jobs increasingly being taken by those holding JD's, or is there the same bias which the corporate world holds that someone with a JD will jump ship too soon once they have some experience? I was initially dismissive when someone else suggested the paralegal cert up thread, but it could make a lot of sense for someone who doesn't have a firm footing in a professional track and is looking for a living wage job. Definitely less risk in terms of money and time than a JD for those who are interested in law but not sure if the investment in a JD is worthwhile. I know a few people that flirted with law school, went the paralegal route first to test the waters then ran far, far away from law.
.
When I was a partner, what we looked for in a litigation paralegal was: smart; good work ethic; willingness and aptitude to listen and learn; well organized; and pleasant to work with.
For me the last two where what really mattered most. I am very disorganized and I have no tolerance for snippy, or rude people. A paralegal certificate seemed to matter to our recruiters, but I preferred people without one. The "certified paralegals always thought they already knew it all and there was only one right way to do anything - they way they were taught in paralegal school. I wanted someone who would listen, learn and also be able to figure out better ways of doing things. Paralegals with certificates are dime a dozen, but good litigation paralegals who can think and adapt are rare and worth their weight in platinum. I would gladly pay a really good litigation paralegal more than a new or even two or three year associate. The problem is there are only like six really good litigation paralegals out there. The rest all decided they wanted to be lawyers.
Agree. I think that actually used to be the model when law was taught as an Apprenticeship, which actually makes sense too. One of my biggest complaints against our local bar association was that they didn't allow more CLE credits to be earned through volunteer work. There was a a huge need for legal aid services in the area, but it was hard to get volunteers since the CLE credits were capped at something like 10 hours. When you're an unemployed recent grad, the work experience in legal aid is great and helps defray some of the CLE expenses. Having that extra incentive to get the new grads to volunteer (for credit) would have both helped them gain practical experience AND served the community vs spending several thousand in a classroom, but sadly the local bar association was only interested in $$$. This was borne out by the fact that all credits could be earned at once by taking a several-thousand dollar cruise to the Bahamas. You can guess which option most of the law firm folks chose.
California CLE was the dumbest thing ever. the primary way to get it out of the way, was to buy a complete video program for a couple of hundred dollars and run the videos while you do other work. You could teach cle courses and get 3x credit, but you put in 20x the time. Still teaching the classes was more fun than taking them.
True, but traditionally the hands-on grunt work in actually learning the daily ins and outs of law practice was something that fell on the first year associates. However, the repetitive manual tasks such as document review and certain form prep are now increasingly being outsourced, which raises the question of how much practical knowledge should be expected of recent grads vs. what should be learned 'on the job' so to speak. It seems the pendulum is shifting in law schools now from studying abstract concepts like the Rule Against Perpetuities to more hands-on legal clinics so students can learn the practicalities that may be expected of them before they even start their first job. It may simply boil down to a cash crunch in smaller or mid-sized firms who have less money to waste on 4Ls reviewing documents and need them to have their feet to the fire sooner..? However, I'd say that if the majority of law firms are now expecting practical knowledge then it's either the job of the law school to provide it or we need to be more transparent to students that they may need some additional outside studying in addition to just the bar exam in order to be job-ready.
If they do not learn to apply analytical thinking to problem solving, they will never be good lawyers. Not ever. Teaching them the mechanics will doom them to working as mechanics and never learning more. Then, as you said they get outsourced. We had a number of permanent grunt type attorneys. They did not try cases, take depositions or argue motions. They just did doc review, research, first draft writing, answer discovery and assist at trials with computers and such. They had to put in insane hours to make up for the fact they did no marketing. Some of them were considerably older than me and that is all the did and all they were ever going to do. I could not stand that. I would hold up a work for food sign along the freeway before I would adopt that life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
