Does Law School Produce Lawyers?
by Andrew P. Connors on August 23, 2011
I previously wrote about the difficult decision to attend law school and the problem of unsatisfactory legal writing in law school. In the first article, I concluded that a prospective law student should consider–above all-else–whether he will enjoy reading, writing, and arguing and whether he has a reasonable aptitude for those things. Once at law school, the student should persevere unless substantially low grades or other concerns suggest that the love and aptitude the student once thought he had has vanished. In the second article, I commented on the intractable problem of the significant number of law students that seem unable to adequately write about a legal problem. There, I concluded that practice is the most essential thing required to improving legal writing. It seems to me that these two issues are interrelated, and an examination of them reveals much about whether law schools are actually producing “lawyers,” that is, professionals of reasonable competency.
The answer: “It depends.” As with any form of education, the institution can only go so far. I mentioned this in Notes to a Prospective Law Student. A law student must really practice if he wishes to build the foundation for success as a licensed professional. The practice of law must always include a significant amount of writing. How could it not? Yet, in legal academia, it is possible to avoid stringent writing to a significant degree. Exams do not necessarily require good writing; with the limited time and closed universe presented by an exam, professors are to some degree lenient on student writing on an exam. Some classes may require written assignments, but those assignments are not very rigorous and often lack depth. If a student avoids moot court, mock trial, or law review, he can probably mostly avoid tackling new and interesting legal problems, and avoid the nasty process of researching, writing, and thinking. To the extent the student may have some practice with these skills in an introductory research and writing course, expectations at that point are still low, and grading might again be relatively lenient. In any event, the best 1L researcher, writer, and analyst may not fare so well by his 3L year if he has managed to avoid practicing those skills. The same is true for attorneys in practice. That’s why they call it practice, right?
So what does this all mean? If you want to be a good lawyer, go out and be one. Having a “J.D.” or even an “Esq.” after your name won’t make you one. Work hard. Research and write often. Continually improve. Perhaps law schools should require more stringent writing of all students, but this can only go so far. You must make the difference in yourself through hard work and sacrifice. It is then when you will truly see the best shine through.
Copyright 2011 Andrew P. Connors
Walter Russell Mead Agrees
by Andrew P. Connors on August 18, 2011
I’ve previously mentioned some of the problems with the American education system, particularly the legal education system, here, here, and here. Walter Russell Mead shares some related thoughts over at his Via Meadia blog:
The truth is that if American high schools (and middle and elementary schools) were doing their jobs, many students could get all the formal education they need in 12 years.
In any case, we need to move from a ‘time based’ to a competency based educational system. You don’t get a high school diploma because you have spent 12 years in classrooms; you get a high school diploma because you have demonstrated a certain level of core competence.
A fortiori for BA, MA and JD and PhD degrees. American students could learn much more in much less time — and at much less cost — than they now do. Making this move quickly and effectively is one of the keys to American success in the new century.
Copyright 2011 Andrew P. Connors
IPad for Lawyers?
by Andrew P. Connors on August 17, 2011
I’ve had a few fellow lawyers suggest to me that the iPad is a wonderful tool for on-the-go lawyers (for a good site on the subject, check out the aptly named iPad for Lawyers.) I welcome readers thoughts on the subject. A few further questions come to mind. Is the iPad as practical for attorneys that don’t have a significant trial practice? What about the competing Samsung Galaxy Tab and HP Touch? What about a traditional laptop?
Comments are open.
Copyright 2011 Andrew P. Connors
Practice Areas Part I: Intellectual Property
by Andrew P. Connors on August 16, 2011
As a law student, you’ve probably heard the following question” “What area of law do you want to practice?” Oftentimes, you might not have a very good answer. This article begins a series where I answer the question, “What kind of law would make for an interesting practice?” In this series, I will try to highlight a wide variety of legal areas, describe generally what the particular area deals with, note some of the common legal problems that arise within the area, and identify some personality traits and personal interests that make a good fit for the particular area.
Without further ado, I begin the first of the series: intellectual property. After all, I wrote a law review article on the subject. Intellectual property, or IP, is a large and generally misunderstood area of the law. Most people tend to confuse various sub-areas of IP. Also, law students and even lawyers generally tend to believe the area is more complicated or technical than it actually is.
Intellectual property includes patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secret law.
Patents generally protect “inventions,” that is, items or compounds with some utilitarian application. They can also protect technical processes. Properly speaking, this description actually applies to the most common form of patent–the utility patent. Other less common patents protect plants and ornamental designs of physical objects. An inventor may obtain a patent on an invention if certain conditions are met, which grants the inventor the exclusive right to use, make, and sell the invention (among other things) for a limited time.
Trademark law protects marks or other distinctive features which indicate the origin of goods. If properly enforced and maintained, they last indefinitely. They essentially protect “branding,” e.g., logos, brand names, and packaging. In some instances, it can even protect distinctive colors or music. By registering a trademark with a federal or state agency, the holder may get certain rights to stop the use of a counterfeit or confusingly similar mark. Moreover, certain common law rights may apply absent registration.
Copyright law protects “works of authorship,” or colloquially, art. Music, books, songs, movies, and video games are examples of the kinds of things that copyright can protect. The work must have some kind of “creative spark.” Authors of works protected by copyright, like inventors of patented items, may prevent others from doing various things with the work–most notably, copying it. A copyright subsists much longer than the rights associated with a patent.
Finally, we come to trade secret. Trade secret protects information that a company has made sufficiently “secret,” e.g., by contract with employees. Trade secrets might be eligible for protection by the previously discussed IP devices, or they might not. They are most often associated with business secrets having substantial value–client lists, manufacturing methods, and secret formulas. Wouldn’t you love to know the formula to Coca-Cola? You bet–and so would everyone else. That’s why its a trade secret.
So what kind of person would be interested in practicing in this area of the law? Perhaps a creative person–someone interested in art, music, logos, or the like. Business-oriented or entrepreneurial people might also find an interest in this area of the law. Many businesses–sometimes unknowingly to their creators–are built around significant IP assets. Thus, whether the business rises or falls may depend to a significant degree upon whether the business can protect–or even has–the right to an underlying IP asset.
Many law students and attorneys view IP as a complex, difficult area of the law. This may be true for patent law, where technical knowledge is often required (in fact, to represent clients in patent matters before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, a prospective patent attorney or patent agent must have a technical degree to sit for that agency’s admissions test.) However, beyond patents, IP law is not overly technical, and it often can be very interesting and fun. IP law includes planning and litigation components. Common litigation may include infringement of copyrighted works (like illegally downloading songs), disputes over licensing of works or trademarks (dispute over who owns a work or mark, or disputes over agreements to share the work or mark), and suits involving past employees that have released sensitive business information.
As you can see, IP law is an interesting area of the law that a law student might wish to practice as an attorney.
Copyright 2011 Andrew P. Connors
Is Law School Worth It?
by Andrew P. Connors on August 15, 2011
I have read a lot lately about a so-called law school “bubble,” where the number of law jobs available is significantly less than the number of graduates from law school. Given this state, it inevitably follows that there is a significant waste of resources on our hands–more likely than not, in the form of significant amounts of federal student loans that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. I have no reason to doubt this assessment. By way of anecdote, I know many law graduates that have significant debts. Some of those people also have reasonably good-paying jobs, though–at least, they pay enough to justify the debt. That seems to be the big questions pushed in the legal press nowadays, “Will your future earnings justify your debt?”
This is, no doubt, an important question. After all, one of the purposes of a career is to provide a roof over your head, food in your stomach, and to pay your other living expenses. And, of course, people usually would like at least a little money for luxuries, an occasional vacation, and retirement. These are all reasonable desires, and they are also things that might be out of reach if you are saddled with significant debt.
It seems to me, however, that there is an equally important question a person considering going to law school should answer, “Do I want to be a lawyer?” Perhaps this sounds elementary, but I am continually amazed at how many law students I have met that have no interest in practicing law and have no interest in doing things that a law degree might be very helpful with, e.g., starting a business. From all I can tell, these students are just placating their parents or making sure that the federal money keeps flowing to their pockets, biding their time until they can figure out what exactly it is they want to do with their lives. In the meantime, they’re racking up a tremendous amount of debt they’ll inevitably have to pay for.
My advice is simple: if you genuinely want to be a lawyer, go to law school . Realize what you are getting into and prepare accordingly. If you get reasonably good grades, succeed at extracurricular activities, and find you enjoy your classes and your internships, then press on. If, on the other hand, you find yourself with low grades and a disinterest in the law, then maybe law school isn’t for you.
Above all, do what you love and what you are reasonably good at. If those things are there, you’ll succeed. I will have more to say about this in future posts.
Copyright 2011 Andrew P. Connors