Legal Marketplace Puts Onus on Law Schools to Provide More Practical Experience

08/11/11

New York State Bar President Vincent E. Doyle III was quoted as saying in an interview with the New York Law Journal that, ''Legal education should have more of an emphasis on making sure graduates are ready to practice law. It is something that has been de-emphasized, and it shows. Our research and our own experience show that graduates are less prepared to practice law.''


On the surface, it's all well and good to say that students need more experience, fresh out of school. But who's responsible for seeing they get it?

First, it seems largely intuitive that a person would gain the bulk of his or work experience in the workplace.

It also seems largely intuitive that a legal education should be focused on providing students with a theoretical base of knowledge from which to make decisions and solve problems.

To be sure, there aren't many graduates the likes of 'Vinny Gambini' among the newly conferred. Many law schools already provide a wide range of excellent opportunities for students to gain practical experience while still in school.

So, what's the source of the issue? As is often the case, the almighty dollar. Essentially, it would seem the trend that law schools take on a greater responsible for giving students hands on experience is a direct result of the recession, and clients' unwillingness to pay for services rendered by newbies.

According to the July 11th wsj.com article, 'Law Schools Get Practical', Don Liu, general counsel for Xerox Corp explained that law firms used to be able to bill clients for work performed by a new lawyer, even if that included acclimating. However, Liu says that since the recession hit, many corporate clients began cutting the hours a firm could charge, and started making it a policy not to pay for services performed by first-year associates.

It's a classic Catch-22: if first year associates can't practice, they can't gain experience. But they can't gain experience if they're not allowed to practice, because their law firm can't bill for their time.

So what's a law firm to do?

Put the onus back on the law school, so it would seem.

Jennifer Queen, head of recruiting for McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP was quoted as saying: ''This is a push from clients saying, 'Why are we going to pay this kind of money? We don't want to train the new lawyers.'''

Whether or not the shift toward law schools providing students with more practical experience is appropriate, or deserved, many schools have already embraced this trend in their programming.

Examples cited in the July 11^th wsj.com article include New York Law School's hiring additional faculty - many of whom practice - to teach classes in negotiation, counseling and fact investigation.

In addition, Harvard Law School started a problem-solving class for its first-year students last year, and Stanford Law School is considering making a clinical course that would require students to work several 40 hour weeks necessary for graduation.

And because the competition for jobs is greater than ever, it seems the marketplace is in the position of calling the shots, at least for now.

Seemingly, the only thing missing thus far from the debate is the logic that certain experiences can be gained only in the workplace. Therefore, no matter how much emphasis is placed on students gaining more experience while still in school, a certain portion of that will happen only when associates are faced with real life situations, and are forced to make real life decisions.

Learn the 10 Factors That Matter to Big Firms More Than Where You Went to Law School