Questioning 3L

You may have missed it, but last week the American Bar Association held its annual meeting in Chicago. Who knew? My Shingle noticed, but only to say that the conference didn't offer much for most lawyers. Maybe that's why most of us knew little about it.

But on the heels of that conference the AP ran a story asking: Is the third year of law school really necessary?

At many top law schools, the third year is famously relaxed, a halcyon interlude between rigorous introductory courses and the long hours that await graduates at law firm jobs. There is research and volunteer work, but also a lot of bar-hopping and little studying: 15 hours per week, according to one survey at 11 law schools, compared to 33 hours for first-year students.

But if it's an extended vacation, it's pricey: $30,000 or more at top private schools. And at many law schools, grads can't count on the six-figure salaries awaiting many at the most prestigious programs, so an extra year of debt is a big burden.

The two stories (the ABA Conference and the story about 3L) are linked because apparently the ABA recently updated its accreditation guidelines for law schools “to require more total minutes of instruction, but offering schools more flexibility in how that's structured.” Everyone seems to agree that the third year of law school is currently not very valuable for most students, but they disagree on whether that means it should be made more rigorous or disposed of altogether. As Evan Schaeffer noted, Professor Ann Althouse is firmly in the “make it more rigorous” camp:

It is amazing that one can hold oneself out as a lawyer after a mere three years of education.

Hm. Really? Because lawyers are like, um, brain surgeons or something? The good professor is certainly onto something in terms of most newly-minted lawyers being woefully unprepared to actually practice law, but that's certainly not for lack of time spent in law school! In a comment to the professor's post, “Kevin S.” sums up what I would say are the real issues here:

There is a lot of challenging material in the law. And one could spend a lifetime learning about it. But is one better suited to *practice* law after the third year as compared to the second? How much better (an important question, as one would certainly be more learned with 6 years than 3)? Is the marginal benefit to the public and the student worth an extra $30,000 (or quite a bit more considering opportunity costs)?

I would say the answer to those questions is “no,” “very little,” and “no.” Judging from this essay from Evan Schaeffer—a practicing attorney who's been there—I'm not the only one. There are clearly lots of people who are very invested in making the law seem more complex and difficult than it really is, and these are often the same people who tend to infantilize the public and speak in patronizing tones about how we must protect people from poorly trained lawyers and that the best way to do that is to regulate legal education—hence, the ABA's ridiculous accreditation requirements. For a small taste of just how ridiculous those requirements are, Dennis Kennedy writes:

Interestingly, I had a discussion with a non-lawyer the other day about the nature of legal education and found it difficult to explain the current state of legal education. Especially difficult to explain (probably because I don't understand it myself) is the accreditation process for new law schools, with its heavy emphasis on number of volumes in a school's law library. My friend kept shaking her head in disbelief.

Kennedy goes on to speculate about “whether law school has become impossibly over-academized.” Good question. Perhaps something of an answer can be found in the fact that too many law professors have close to zero experience actually practicing law. That being the case, it's no wonder we get constantly tested on “issue-spotting” and graduate w/out knowing how to file a motion in court. Our good professors are only teaching us what they know and, damn!, can they ever spot those issues!

But the ABA's accreditation requirements are a special peeve of mine because they are probably the single biggest impediment to getting rid of the third year, and of course, law schools will fight tooth and nail to make sure the ABA continues to require the third year because it means so much extra cash for law schools. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle there that's good for no one but the law schools, as far as I can see. The accreditation requirements' emphasis on number of books in the library or number of computer labs or whatever also tends to drive up costs for students who will then go out into the “real” world and often have to deal with older or nonexistent technology and sharply curtailed access to legal materials—a situation for which law school has not prepared them at all. Again, all of this is good for ... whom?

I'll be starting my 3rd year of law school in a couple of weeks and perhaps I will find that it's very valuable. Perhaps not. L-Cubed says he'd rather have his $40k back and I bet I will, too. What is certain is that the insanely high cost of a legal education does not serve the public good. Also certain is the fact that the current system of legal education assumes that newly-minted JD's will learn most of what they need to know for their daily work on the job, which means we pay absolutely astonishing amounts of money to get a credential so that we can then go on to a job where we can learn how to use our credential. Does this really make sense? Is this really the best way to ensure our country's legal system is fair and accessible to all citizens?

Candide, where are you?

Posted August 14, 2005 09:40 AM | 3L