Legal education as a closed loop

There is something I have found very strange in legal education. There is this odd recycling of personnel between student and teacher. It seems that the students with the top grades do not last long out in the world practicing law (for any number of reasons). They then return to the academic community they just left to become law professors (instead of actually working as a attorney). These are the very people whom are tasked with educating the next generation of law students, rewarding like behavior in the classroom and creating another crop of people whom will not practice law. A quick review of the curriculum vitae of, say, five random law professors at damn near any school tells the same story: straight from undergrad to law school, less than 24 months at Big Law firm, and then right back to the comforting confines of academia.

In essence, the closed loop is as such: Good at law school game, bad at the law game, right back to the law school game.

One of the most egregious examples was a professor whom recorded a review lecture of evidence I watched a few times. He was leaning forward, smiling at the lectern, saying, “That’s where you really get ‘em on cross. You get that defendant on the stand. Isn’t that fun?”

(I should note, I've worked selling all manner of widgets. I know bullshit when I see it. This guy was talking out of his ass.)

So, I googled him. Yep, he did about two years at some civil firm before becoming a law professor. He never cross-examined a criminal defendant in his life.

So, why lie? I have no idea. I guess it made him feel more credible somehow. Of course, once the ruse is exposed, any credibility is gone.

Now, this is where it gets interesting (at least for me). As Christine Hurt put it, “Studying the law and practicing are two different exercises, which appeal to different personalities and skill sets.” (http://www.theconglomerate.org/2011/09/scamlaw-forum-questions-for-the-day.html.)

I proffer that those that excel in law school are people whom posses a certain personality and skill set, or narrow range of personalities and skill sets. In my law school experience (admittedly little more than anecdotal commentary, but it’s my blog, so there), the top ten kids in my graduating class really seemed to be cut from the same cloth. There was a social awkwardness about them, a stammering manner of speech, and an odd sense of fashion. These people were difficult to interact with socially. I can see how these traits would not lend themselves well to dealing with clients and coworkers.

A second anecdotal comment: As I have undoubtedly mentioned in earlier post on this blog, my wife is an attorney. She graduated from law school back in 2004. I can look to her former classmates and see much the same situation. One of my wife’s good friends graduated third in her class of 90-something. She is a sharp girl, that one. But, man, is she difficult to be around. Now, all these years later, the girl can’t seem to manage working more than three days a week. I don’t want to mention her position, but it is one that requires an extremely bright person who can write extremely well. She has never had a client and never been to court. Not once. She reminds me of several professors I had in law school.

These top law students, whom invariably go on to failure at the actual practice of law (or “choose” not to do it any longer than 24 months), go on to educate the next generation of law students. I believe the educational system itself remains more or less static (it’s the same damn cases and essay exams, year after year), and these former students newly minted as professors then cultivate, recognize, and reward the personalities and skill sets that they themselves possess, rewarding top honors to like students. This new bunch at the head of their graduating class are either are doomed to failure at practice, or they will grow bored with it, or they will choose to leave, or whatever, and then they come back to the safety of academia themselves. And then the cycle begins anew.

This is a very inefficient way to educated students in the practice of law. In fact, I'm not even sure anyone is pretending this is an attempt to teach at all. There is a disconnect between what is taught in law school and what is needed to practice law. And this float between the competency rewarded in law school and the actual knowledge base and skills needed in the field is indicative of this problem.

I'm not entirely sure how one can fix this sorted mess. But, not hiring those who can't cut it in the trenches to train the next round of recruits might be a starting point.