Compelling Interests

Internet in Classrooms (Again)

2008-04-16T10:03:00.000-07:00

We've talked about this before, but now the University of Chicago Law School has banned Internet access in the classroom. (Hat tip: WSJ Law Blog). The reason is so that students will pay more attention in class. But that makes no sense at all. Students who don't want to pay attention to lectures will always find a way not to pay attention. (Maybe the University of Chicago will try to ban daydreaming next!)

The truth is that law students are a highly motivated group that has paid a large amount of money for the privilege of learning the law. If a lecture can't capture their attention, the problem is probably not the Internet, but rather the person standing in the front of the class.

Good News for Public Interest Lawyers at Harvard

2008-03-18T09:05:00.001-07:00

This was in today's New York Times:

Concerned by the low numbers of law students choosing careers in public service, Harvard Law School plans to waive tuition for third-year students who pledge to spend five years working either for nonprofit organizations or the government.

You can read the full article here.

Twenty Minute Law School Success Tip

2007-02-25T20:41:00.000-08:00

Is it really possible to improve your chances of getting good grades in law school and getting a good job afterwards in only twenty minutes? Yes, and it's incredibly simple: just make nice with your law school professors.

It's only human nature to treat people you know more kindly than people you don't. The trick here is to get your law school professors to see you as a human being rather than just another body taking notes behind a laptop in a cavernous lecture hall class stuffed with faceless law students.

Here's how it's done. After class, from time to time (but not too often!) approach your professors and ask a question. An intelligent question is better than an idiotic one, but do the best you can. Making any kind of human contact with your professor will improve your relationship. That's it. A few simple (hopefully intelligent) questions over the course of a semester can make a big difference.

What's the benefit? If a professor knows who you are, if you are on the edge, the professor will be just a little more likely to make the close call in your favor. In addition, professors often know potential employers in the local area, but if they don't know who you are, there's no way to get a recommendation that could get you in the door.

Now, making nice with your professors is amazingly effective, but you need to be careful because if done wrong, this can backfire horribly. Here are a few tips to keep that personal reaction positive.

First, do not just try to chat with the professor and certainly do not attempt to "schmooze" him or her. Law professors are not dumb and will see through this immediately. Instead, just ask a question. Law professors generally like answering questions. After you've got your answer, thank the professor and then...leave them alone, because while professors like answering questions, they also like their free time and when the class is over, they are ready to get on with their free time.

Second, do not be a pest. Do not stop your professors after every class. Do not ask lots and lots of questions. You want to be seen and known, but not dreaded.

Third, remember that the best time to talk to the professor is right after class-- not their office hours. While law schools require professors to hold office hours, hardly anyone ever uses them, and so professors come to think of that time as their own personal time, and although they will never say it, they will secretly be irritated at having that time "interrupted."

If you consistently make human contact with your professors in an intelligent, non-intrusive way, over time you will make a good impression and, at least with some professors, you will start to develop a real relationship that can translate into better grades and better jobs. It's simple, but it works and all it takes is twenty minutes over the course of a semester.

How to Brief a Case in Five Minutes

2007-02-13T20:08:00.000-08:00

At LexPrep's law school prep program, we focus on understanding substantive concepts rather than trying to teach mechanical study aids. Nevertheless, a question many law school students ask is "how do I brief a case." For those of you who have never heard of briefing a case, don't worry. You're not alone. But it is one of those study aids that you should know about, which properly used can be a great help. Unfortunately, most people do not use this tool effectively or efficiently.

In essence, briefing a case consists of summarizing a judicial decision so you can remember it later. Every case has certain universal elements. These elements are:

1. A statement of the facts that gave rise to the dispute.

2. A description of the proceedings in court that preceded the decision at hand.

3. A statement of the legal rules applicable to the particular situation.

4. A decision, reached by applying the legal rules to the facts as described.

Briefing a case normally entails writing descriptions of each of these elements. Many law students spend dozens of hours preparing case briefs, trying to internalize the facts and the law that each case teaches. While I certainly agree that, all other things being equal, the more you study, the better you will do in law school, case briefing can be taken to a ridiculous extreme, well past the point where there is any benefit in the exercise.

An extreme version of briefing a case will try to capture every critical fact, the complete procedural posture, every legal rule, and a full description of their application. These extreme "briefs" can span a full page or more for every single case you read in law school. But all of that detail isn't necessary and in fact can be downright distracting from the essential points of law that you actually need to remember.

So how should you brief a case? First, you should recognize that every case taught at law school represents an important legal concept. What you need to know is, for each case that you study, what that critical concept is. Most of these concepts can be stated in a sentence. They can all be stated in a paragraph. Very often the particulars of the situation that led the court to identify the critical concept is not all that important because you are learning foundational concepts that apply in many, many settings (caution: this is true in law school and not necessarily true once you are practicing law). Your case brief is everything it needs to be if it summarizes in a sentence or two the critical concept of the case.

Ok...so how do you identify the critical concept? There is no silver bullet that works for every case, but I suggest that as you read a case, you pay special attention to the very beginning where the court identifies the question that it is trying to answer (this is sometimes referred to as "the question presented"). Once you know the question, all you need to do is find the answer to the question (which in older cases especially can sometimes be a challenge in and of itself). Write down the question and the answer, and you have your five minute case brief with everything you need to remember for the exam at the end of the semester. You still have to read the case, but when you are studying for the final exam, you will be much happier trying to review a few pages of super-summaries rather than pages and pages of mostly irrelevant case briefs.

Money Isn't Everything After All

2007-02-07T07:10:00.000-08:00

We recently noted that some big law firms in New York recently hiked starting associate salaries to the astronomical figure of $160,000 per year. The press is now reporting that more California firms are moving to match the pay increases that big law firms in New York recently gave to their associates. Interestingly, these pay increases are not being met with universal dancing in the streets. A Law.com article has this interesting observation:

More than 80 percent of respondents to an American Bar Association survey in November said they'd prefer to work fewer hours for less money. More than 30 percent of respondents would like to work 20 percent less and said they'd give up between 25 and 30 percent of their pay in exchange.

In addition to lifestyle, the pay increases are also causing associates to worry about job security. If the legal market takes a downturn, law firms saddled with high associate salary costs may start downsizing.

So the moral of the story? Be careful what you wish for....

Check out the full story: "Associates React to Jones Day and Weil Gotshal Salary Raises"

Good News for LSAT Takers

2007-02-01T19:55:00.000-08:00

Good news and LSAT are generally not two concepts that go together. It's hard to paint a pretty face on a half-day, high-stakes test that plays a big role in where you go to law school. While the test will always be grueling and generally miserable, a recent study by Kaplan, a major LSAT prep company, has found that seventy-four percent of the 194 law schools it surveyed have changed or are planning to change the way they count multiple LSAT scores. In the past, if you took the LSAT more than once, schools would average your scores, diluting any gains from a second attempt and reducing your score if you did worse the second time. Under the new approach, if you take the LSAT more than once, law schools will consider only the highest score. This means pre-law students taking the LSAT will have a clean second chance to do better. On the other hand, a second chance means submitting to the horrors of the LSAT a second time, so in the end it is probably still better to do your best the first time around.

Read more about the Kaplan survey: "Bar Assn. Recommends New Policy for LSAT."

First Year Associate Salaries on the Rise

2007-01-31T07:25:00.000-08:00

Just how much can you really make as a first year attorney at a big law firm? If you go to work in New York, the going rate for a brand new lawyer fresh out of law school with no experience is now...$165,000. Consider that the median household income in the United States is only $46,000, and any way you slice it, that's a lot of cash. If you don't work in New York, first year salaries are only just a bit less stratospheric, with first year attorneys now pulling in about $145,000. Even this difference may not last, as different law firms weigh their market strategies. Given the high cost of law school, starting salaries like these are going to be irresistible for most law students, which will make the competition for these high wage jobs fiercer than ever.

Getting Educated in Law School

2007-01-23T07:30:00.000-08:00

Earlier this month, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching came out with a grim report on the usefulness of law school education. The report entitled, "Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law," finds that, while law schools do a pretty good job teaching students basic legal doctrines, law schools do a pretty lousy job getting students ready to practice law.

You would think that as a professional school, law school's would have no other purpose than to prepare their students to enter the legal profession. Unfortunately, most don't.

The life blood of law school is learning and understanding the nuances of legal doctrines that are enunciated in reported judicial decisions. According to the Carnegie Foundation report, law schools actually do pretty well at conveying these doctrines. But just knowing all the rules won't make you the quarterback in the Superbowl. You have to be able to read the field as well.

Students get into law school by being smart, but smarts are only the ticket to admission to practicing law. To succeed, students need other skills that are often ignored by law schools. For example, I have argued that young lawyers need to know how to network; they need to understand how to talk to clients; and they need to know how to manage their time. More often than not, these soft skills play a larger role in determining success than just being a good lawyer.

One reason that law schools may neglect the practical side of practicing law is that law professors often have only limited experience as practicing attorneys, and some have no experience at all. Unless you plan on becoming a law professor, however, you should try to learn as much as you can about practicing law before your first day on the job.

If you can't learn about the practical skills lawyers need from your courses, what can you do? Fortunately, most law schools offer a terrific opportunity to get hands on experience in a safe environment. These are called clinics. In a clinic, law students represent real clients on real legal matters under the supervision of an experienced attorney. Interacting with real people makes the dry legal doctrines covered in the casebooks come alive in a way that no amount of reading can duplicate. Along the way, you will also be confronted with the difficult ethical and moral decisions that real lawyers have to grapple on a routine basis. Clinics are not a perfect solution, but a law school education that consists of memorizing rules in casebooks is necessarily incomplete.

With that said, let me add one small caveat: do not neglect your casebook studies in the pursuit of practical knowledge. Understanding the basic legal doctrines is important, even fundamental, to practicing lawyers. Moreover, mastering those doctrines is critical to getting the best grades in law school, and those grades can play a decisive role in what job opportunities and career paths will be open to you after you graduate. Nevertheless, learning legal doctrine is only one part of a lawyer's education. To complete your education you will need practical skills that can only be learned by watching real lawyers in action. And for that part of your education, you are on your own.

Read a summary of a "Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law."

The Truth about Law School Costs

2007-01-18T10:20:00.000-08:00

So how much does law school really cost? Answer: a lot. According a report published by Equal Justice Works, the total cost of one year of law school at a private school, including tuition, books, and living expenses, is a staggering $40,000 per year! If you attend a public law school and are lucky enough to get in-state tuition, according the report, you're still looking at average costs of nearly $25,000 per year. In other words, your three year trip to law school is going to cost between $75,000 and $120,000. That's a lot of coin.

Ok, ok so law school costs a lot of money? Should you care? We've already discussed how big law firms pay big money in exchange for big time commitments and how starting salaries at big law firms can be as much as $135,000 per year. So you're going to make all of that money back and then some, right? For those of you who get jobs at big law firms and have the endurance to survive, that is undoubtedly true. The true problem with the crushing price of law school, however, is that it limits your options.

For example, according to the Equal Justice Report, the typical entry-level salary for a criminal prosecutor or a public defender is around $45,000. If you want to work in some other public interest job, the salary picture is even worse, with the typical entry-level position paying only $40,000. At those salary rates, students who took on a high amount of debt to pay for their legal education can't afford to even consider these career paths.

Now it is true that some law schools offer loan repayment plans for their graduates who enter public sector or public interest jobs, but those law schools are still very definitely the minority. So when it comes to managing the costs of law school, you are pretty much on your own. A common strategy for young lawyers carrying heavy debt loads is to work for a large law firm for three or four years, use the money from the high salary to pay down the law school debt (instead of buying BMW's and Armani suits, for example), and then move on to the work they really want to do once they have more financial freedom.

Because this strategy is so common, however, there is more competition than ever for coveted spots at the big law firms. Law students who in other circumstances would go to the District Attorneys office or to the Sierra Club instead apply to the law firms. There is nothing you can do about that competition, other than get the very best grades you can in law school as early in the process as you can. Good luck!

Download and read the entire Equal Justice Works Report: "Financing the Future: Responses to the Rising Debt of Law Students."

The Pursuit of Happiness

2007-01-09T06:41:00.000-08:00

For successful, usually well-compensated professionals, lawyers tend to be a pretty unhappy bunch. For people not in the business, this is a complete mystery. But like a detective novel whodunnit, the answer to the mystery is simple once you know it: life in the law often means little control over the rest of your life and that lack of control is all too often a recipe for unhappiness.

Here is a useful analogy (shamelessly borrowed from an article by Jonathan Clements). Nearly everyone finds the morning commute a source of unending frustration. While books and essays have been written about finding spiritual enlightenment in situations as grim and awful as living in a Nazi concentration camp, no one (that I know of) has ever sung the praises of being stuck in traffic. The reason is that traffic is unpredictable. If it was always gridlock, you could adjust your expectations and be ready. The problem is you never know what to expect, and that uncertainty makes most rides exercises in disappointment.

How is a lawyer's life like the morning commute? Especially for junior lawyers, the problem is that they have very little control over their own schedules. It may be Friday afternoon, but you still are not sure whether you will have to work on Saturday. You may be lounging at home on Saturday, but you still can't fully relax because you are not sure whether your blackberry will go off and you'll be called into work. In other words, your schedule is uncertain, just like the morning commute. When it's good, it's good, but when it's bad, it's awful.

So are there any coping strategies? Yes, but they're not easy to do. You can schedule time with family and friends and then move heaven and earth to keep those appointments. For example, if you're meeting friends for dinner and a big project comes in, go to the dinner and then work through the night to get the project done. You will still have to suffer through the work, but you will not have disrupted your dinner. Even more importantly, by making a firm commitment and being sure in your own mind that you will keep it, you will have avoided the psychic pain of worrying about the uncertainty of whether you will be going to dinner or not.

If that doesn't sound like a great solution, that's because it's not and it's very difficult to sustain, which is why young attorneys leave overly demanding law firms in droves that law firms have to replenished every year through massive recruiting drives. Uncertainty and unpredictability are inherent in the practice of law. That's why it is all the more important that, in areas where we can exert some control, we flex our muscles and set the boundaries that work for us. And then maybe we could all be just a little bit happier.

How to Succeed in Law Without Really Trying

2007-01-07T19:31:00.000-08:00

Want to succeed in law? Want to do it without really trying? Here's the secret: Hang out with as many people as you can and have fun. Have fun? Yep. Here's why it works.

As you move from law school into law work, you will find that being smart and hard-working only get you so far. More often than not, especially in private practice, but also in government, the secret of success is who you know.

The mystery and difficulty of this process come from the fact that it is exceedingly hard to tell in advance who the good people to get to know are. Some people are obvious, but the obvious people are generally very hard to meet (Cameron Diaz comes to mind...and if you have her number, please let me know!). For the rest, it's guesswork.

But guesswork is still work, and this post is about succeeding without really trying. So the secret for that is ... be nice to everyone. What does be nice mean? It means be (1) interested, (2) thoughtful, and (3) in touch.

Let's take these one at a time.

Be interested. Here is the good news for everyone who has ever thought that they were terribly boring and had nothing to say: being interested in other people is much more important than being interesting. People are interested in people who are interested in them. So listen to other people, ask thoughtful questions, and then listen. People will remember you as a great conversationalist even if all you did all night was nod your head.

Be thoughtful. If in the course of a conversation, you can think of something you can do for the other person, go ahead and offer to do it. And then (this is critical) actually do it. You will be amazed how people respond to any kindness. This is not unlike Mark Twain's quip to always do right because it will gratify some people and astonish the rest.

Be in touch. What's the point of meeting someone, if you never see them again. So be in touch. Find out their contact information, and then ... contact them. Now you know them and they know you and who knows what favors you'll be able to exchange one day.

Now if this all seems very basic and common-sensical, that's because it is. You would do the exact same thing any time you meet anyone. It's simple manners and politeness--which is why it's amazing how few people do it. Be friendly, and when the time comes when you need friends (and that time comes very, very often), you will have them.

For more tips on the art of networking (also known as schmoozing), you can read some great tips from Guy Kawasaki. Good luck!

Shaking up the First Year Curriculum at Harvard

2006-10-28T22:00:00.000-07:00

Harvard Law School has decided to add a new course to its first year curriculum: International Law and Regulation. Why? To underscore its "importance."

Orin Kerr, at the Volokh Conspiracy notes that "Deans [Are] Not So Impressed with Harvard 1L Curriculum." Given this lukewarm reception, don't look for other law schools to follow Harvard's lead any time soon.

But why not? Isn't international law important enough to put into the first year of law school? The importance of international law may be fairly debatable, but the purpose of the first year of law school is not about exposing law students to every area of law that's "important." If a subject is significant enough to have its own law school course, it has a colorable claim of being important (with the exception perhaps of many "Law and...courses"). Rather, the first year of law school is about making sure that law students master the fundamental concepts and analytical reasoning tools that lawyers and judges use to approach and solve problems.

Each of the courses in the standard first year curriculum explores foundational concepts. Contracts? It tells you how to think about how people make agreements and what happens if they don't follow through. Torts? It tells you how to think about people injuring other people when no agreement is present. Criminal law? It tells you about how the state punishes people for conduct that is disapproved by society. Civil procedure? It tells you how the court system works. Constitutional law? It tells you about the fundamental law of the country. Legal research and writing? It tells you how lawyers figure out what the law is and how they talk about it in writing.

International law, as important as it may be, is not one of the cornerstones of legal reasoning. Rather, it's just another subject that applies that reasoning. And that's why international law will probably not become a standard part of the 1L curriculum any time soon.

As an aside, Professor Kerr in his article wonders out loud whether law students retain much from their first year of law school "because the 1L year tends to be so stressful." But here I think he misses the mark. What law students retain from the first year is less a body of knowledge of specific cases and legal rules and much more an understanding of a new way of thinking about and talking about the world. This is equivalent to learning a new language, and although the process is certainly stressful and many of the details are likely to be forgotten, at the end of the day, if the law school and the law student did their jobs right, the student takes away a new fluency in the culture of law that will allow the student to solve new cases rather than just regurgitate old ones--which, after all, is the point of school.

Talking to Clients

2006-10-21T13:02:00.000-07:00

I've been away from the blog briefly teaching a seminar on interviewing and counseling clients. Here are a few of the highlights of things we discussed.

What's the Client Thinking? Clients approach lawyers with a volatile mix of fear, distrust, and often irrational hope. Many clients are nervous because they don't have much experience with lawyers, and those that do have experience are often wary as well. They are concerned that the lawyer will charge them too much or may not give good advice or may not always act in their best interest. At the same time, they want the lawyer to help them solve a problem and so they often see the lawyer as a medieval champion who will do battle on their behalf vanquishing all their enemies with mighty and terrible blows. So at the same time, the lawyer is both held low and high in the client's esteem. These mixed emotions can create a difficult environment for both the lawyer and the client.

Your job: Figure Everything Out. You might think that clients approach lawyers already knowing everything that happened. After all, in many cases, the client was there for all the main events. Unfortunately, most clients often have only a vague, disorganized, and distorted view of the facts. Your job as a lawyer is to sort out fact from wishful thinking. The primary technique for accomplishing this to get the client to give you a detailed chronology of events and then to ruthlessly question each element of the time line until you can confirm, corroborate, or refute each one. This means not taking your client's story at face value, but rather as a starting point for a deeper inquiry, one that will require constant testing against documents, other witnesses, and other evidence.

Your other job: Inspire Trust and Confidence. In addition to figuring out the facts, the most important thing a lawyer does with a client is instill a sense of trust and confidence. How do you do that? You begin by demonstrating skill, competence, and professionalism. But that's not enough. To build a truly effective relationship, good lawyers go further by having compassion, empathy, and ideally, something in common with the client that adds a human dimension to the attorney-client relationship.

Of course, there's lots more to talking to clients and like all practical skills, this skill is acquired best by actually doing it. Nevertheless, learning how to build a rapport with clients is fundamental to a successful career in law and it pays to think about how to form and manage relationships with clients at every stage of a person's legal career.

Returning to Law Practice

2006-10-04T12:35:00.000-07:00

Most law partners at most law firms have traditionally treated law firm life the same way some patriotic citizens have thought about America: Love it or Leave it. Because of the high billable hours that law firms demand nowadays, many lawyers choose to leave. But after a hiatus from private practice, whether for family reasons or to explore other career alternatives, many lawyers try to return to law firms, and for the most part, these returning lawyers run smack into a locked door.

Dr. Ellen Ostrow, a Maryland based psychologist and career coach, summed up the explanation succintly in her quote quoted in the American Lawyer: "If you developed an identity as 'Mom' or anything else, if you have been willing to compromise your identity as a lawyer, then you are not [considered] serious. You are a dilettante."

Recently, some law firms and the American Bar Association have sponsored a pilot program called "Back to Business Law." The purpose of the program is to keep lawyers up-to-date on legal developments and to help them make and maintain the connections they need to succeed in the hyper-competitive world of modern law practices.

While the ABA's program is a good idea, the bottom line is that if you step off the treadmill for any reason, even very good reasons, it is very hard to step back on. From what I can tell, the people who have successfully negotiated the return trip to law firm life have shared a few qualities that you should know about if you ever think that you'll spend some time away from law firms but want to keep your options open.

1. Network. In many law firms, nothing is more valuable than having connections with clients or potential clients. This means that both before, during, and after a hiatus from the law firm you should do whatever you can to stay in touch with friends and colleagues who can help you find jobs and find clients. Because networking success is a game of low probabilities, the more people you know the better. This means thinking about classmates, work colleagues, clients you've met, neighbors, and the parents of your kid's soccer teammates. The more people you know, the more likely that you will be able to convince a law firm that you are going to add value that they cannot get from any other place.

2. Stay Current. The law is constantly changing and law firms want to know that you have kept up. This expectation is a little unfair because the reality is that law firm lawyers only keep up with the narrow parts of the law that they are working on at any given moment in time. Nevertheless, lawyers are notorious for thinking that they know more than they really know and law firm partners are often the worst offenders. To be able to convince skeptics that you still remember the difference between a contract and a tort, you should do something that uses the legal part of your brain. For example, you could write an article, attend a conference, or join a bar committee. It may not be much, but this will give you something to talk up in an interview.

3. Be Flexible. One potentially disorienting consequence of jumping back into a law firm after time spent away is that suddenly you are not necessarily grouped with your old peer group. While your friends and colleagues who never left the firm are now partners, you as a returning lawyer will probably not be (unless your networking has been so successful you bring with you a book of business that will generate significant money for the firm right away). That's ok. Give yourself a chance to demonstrate your value to the firm. When you do, promotions should follow, and if they don't, well, then you can take your newly refreshed legal experience to a more appreciative firm.

For more information, read: "Lawyers Who Take Time Off Face Tough Return"

Moot Court

2006-10-01T08:26:00.000-07:00

Over the weekend, I had the privilege to participate in a law school rite of passage: the annual moot court competition. I was a judge for the University of San Diego Law School's Annual Tort Moot Court Competition. I served on a panel with two other judges and grilled four second-year law students who each had fifteen minutes to make their case. The arguments were all very good, but the event got me thinking about what makes an effective legal argument.

I'll skip the "be prepared" chestnut that everyone knows (although people apply the rule very unevenly). After you've done your research and your practice arguments and you're on your feet in front of a panel of skeptical judges, what can you do to make your case as compelling as possible? Here are my top five tips:

1. Don't Argue. Even though it's called "oral argument," arguing with judges is not a good idea. The judges have all the power and you have none, so that's an argument that you can never win. Think about trying to have an argument with your boss or your Mom. It's not enough to be right. You have to convince them that you're right and antagonizing them by taking confrontational positions just doesn't work very often. (This is one reason why teenagers get so frustrated arguing with their parents. They're smart enough to know how to argue, but not yet smart enough to know how to persuade.) If you face a skeptical judge, resist the urge to point out how the ignorant fool has misunderstood the law or the facts. Instead of arguing, try to point to authorities that the judge already trusts. Controlling precedents are a good source. Common sense is another. Try to show how the world will be a better place if your side wins and a worse one if your side loses. Ultimately, judges are going to make up their own minds. You can't control them. The best you can do is to guide their thinking by helping them frame the issue in the light most favorable to your side.

2. Tell Them What They Already Know. It is very difficult to convince someone to embrace a radical new way of thinking about a problem. While Galileo may have been right about the laws of the universe, he didn't persuade many of his judges because he challenged their fundamental beliefs too deeply. As an advocate, your goal is to win the case at hand in the court you're standing in and not necessarily in the court of history (although that is nice too). Judges, like most people, are more easily convinced if your argument rests on and is consistent with ideas and principles that they already believe in. In a real court case, you can get a sense of your judges' biases by researching their previous decision. In a moot court situation, you won't have that benefit, but you can still pay close attention to the the kinds of questions the judges are asking and you can tailor your argument to emphasize your points that confirm what the judge already believes is true.

3. Be Ready to Concede. In any case worth litigating, and in every moot court problem ever created, there are points to be made on both sides of the argument. Smart advocates identify their strongest and weakest points. The most skilled advocates, however, go one more step and determine what is the minimum they need to prove to win their case. Knowing this minimum allows you to concede all the points that aren't essential to winning. Being willing to make concessions enhances your credibility with judges because it shows that you are not mindlessly making any argument just because it favors your client, which may be important to you but which is of no help at all to the judges. A timely concession can also keep the focus on the strong points of your arguments by not wasting valuable time on the weak points that you can't win and that you don't even need to win the case.

4. Answer the Questions. Ok, it should be obvious that if a judge asks you a question, you should answer it, but too often lawyers and law students alike will fight giving an answer when they think that the answer is bad for their case. Unfortunately, this strategy of trying to deflect the question is not just ineffective; it's self-defeating. There is no silver-tongued phrase that you can speak that will make the judge forget the question asked or the fact that you did not answer it. The judge may let the question pass, but you can be sure that the judge has decided that the reason you didn't answer the question is because you can't answer it and your case is too weak to be defended. That's the worst of all possible worlds. The judge has concluded that you should lose, but you don't give yourself an opportunity to explain. Instead of dodging the tough question, answer it forthrightly, but then don't stop! Keep talking. Explain how other points put that seemingly bad fact in a different light that is actually favorable to your side. The judges will appreciate your candor and you will at least have had a chance to try to meet the bad fact with the best possible argument.

5. Tell a Story. At the root of every lawsuit are people who each believe that they are in the right and that the other side is in the wrong. Litigation, therefore, is a great morality play where our most fundamental notions of truth, justice, and decency are at stake. This is why law and courtrooms are featured so often on television and in movies. Nevertheless, lawyers are remarkably gifted at making this powerful human drama into a dry, boring blob of nothing. In a courtroom, you ask the judge to rule for your clients because the law commands that your client should prevail. But the law was not written for your client but to vindicate right and to punish wrong, to best of our limited abilities to see right and wrong. So make sure you tell your client's story. Is your client an honest man just trying to make a living? Was your client viciously injured as the result of the other side's cruel indifference? Judges are human beings too and they respond to the moral imperatives that motivate regular people. By telling your clients' stories in vivid and powerful language, you make sure that their humanity is not lost in the shuffle of legal paperwork. The most sympathetic side does not win every legal argument, but it is much harder to rule against a saint than an unrepentant sinner.

Law students and lawyers alike often get very nervous before an oral argument. That's completely understandable because you don't know what you are going to face until you get in there and start answering questions and telling your story. From a judge's perspective, however, oral argument is all about getting help from the lawyers on how to answer the legal questions raised in a case. And since in the end the judges' perspective is the only one that matters, when you go to argue your first case, whether it's in a moot court or in a real courtroom, you should see yourself as an honest guide who is genuinely trying to help the judge do the right thing.

The Correlation Confusion

2006-09-26T19:47:00.000-07:00

The LSAT is this weekend, and for those who are about to undergo the three hour ordeal, I'm wishing you the very best of luck. As you go into the exam, be sure to look out for one common area of confusion that bedevils everyone from nervous test takers to high-level policy-makers, and that is the difference between "correlation" and "causation."

The source of the confusion stems from the fact that it is relatively easy to observe when two events tend to go together, but it is relatively hard to tell whether one event is causing the other. Two events are "correlated" if the presence of one event means that the presence of the other event is more likely. A causal relationship, however, only exists if one of the events is actually causing the other. Or as one statistician puts it, "correlation does not imply causation."

For example, someone might observe that, in the summer, drownings at the beach increase and so do sales of soft drinks. Therefore, there is a correlation between drownings and soft drink sales. But it does not necessarily follow that drownings cause people to buy soft drinks or that people buying soft drinks cause drownings.

Nevertheless, if two events tend to go together, there often is an almost irresistible impulse to conclude that one causes the other. On the LSAT (and in life) before you accept someone's conclusion that event X is causing event Y just because the two events are correlated, you should first consider these possibilities:

1. Instead of X causing Y, maybe Y is really causing X.

2. Maybe a third event, Z, that hasn't been considered yet is causing both X and Y.

3. Maybe there is no causal relationship at all.

Only if you have considered and found reasons to dismiss these other possibilities should you be ready to accept that a correlation might demonstrate a causal relationship.

Well, that's my pre-LSAT tip for the day. Good luck, test takers!

Note Taking Suggestions

2006-09-22T13:33:00.000-07:00

Gina Trappani at Lifehacker has an interesting post today about how to take better notes. Gina lays out the system and then offers the following advice for what to do with those notes:

[O]nce you've attended class and filled in the notes area, that evening, review them and fill in the cues and summary area. When the time comes to study for an exam, read through your notes. To quiz yourself, cover up the right side and use the cues on the left to jog your memory and help you rebuild the factual narrative in your mind. When you've got a paper to write, use the summary section of each notes page to flip through and find relevant facts to cite in your paper.

I haven't tried this system myself, but it makes sense to me, especially because it helps turn your notes into a ready-made outline, and anything that can help save time at exam time is more than welcome.

Read: Take study-worthy lecture notes.

Why are Big, Expensive Law Firms so Big and Expensive?

2006-09-21T11:36:00.000-07:00

One thing every new lawyer discovers very soon after the start of their legal careers is that there is a vast difference in respect, attention, and hourly rates between big law firms and everyone else. The American Lawyer identifies the 250 biggest law firms, and these range in size from a gigantic 3500 to a relatively medium-sized 150 lawyers. The question that bedevils the vast majority of lawyers who are not part of this group is why are these law firms so big and so rich? JD Hull at What About Clients argues that for 90% of cases smaller law firms are every bit as good as their bigger, more expensive competitors. If that's true, then what's going on?

Dan Filler at Concurring Opinions offers this explanation. The answer, he argues, lies with in-house counsel and two self-interested factors that influence whom they pick to represent their organizations. Filler writes:

First, if the attorney came from a big firm - as so many in-house counsel do - he or she may have personal connections that bias the decision. These connections aren't just friendly; in some cases an attorney is looking to maintain the option of returning to the private sector. In addition, in certain cases - particularly ones that he or she sees as losers - counsel may be motivated to send the case to a pricier shop simply so that he or she can say "we lost, but it wasn't my fault. I sent it Cravath."

In other words, in-house counsel choose big, expensive law firms to represent their companies because (1) they pick their friends and (2) they feel that they can't be second-guessed going with a name brand. I think Filler has hit the nail right on the head.

So what is the lesson to take away from this? First, make lots of friends. The best time is in law school when you and your classmates have the time and opportunity to bond and form relationships that will help you no matter where you wind up. Second, if you are part of a smaller law firm, competing on price is not likely to be very effective. It might even be counter-productive because a lower hourly rate might be perceived as reflecting lower quality and therefore less protection for the in-house attorney from being second-guessed in the event of a bad outcome.

Thank You, SDSU!

2006-09-19T19:26:00.000-07:00

I want to give a big thank you to the San Diego State University pre-law society. Today, I gave a talk there about how to get the most out of law school, and they gave me a terrific reception, asked some great questions, and showed an incredible amount of enthusiasm for the law. If that weren't enough, they gave me an awesome t-shirt. Thank you, SDSU. Go Aztecs!

Six Questions to Help You Find Law School Answers

2006-09-18T11:17:00.000-07:00

Law school classes too often involve a professor asking inscrutable questions to hapless students. Since you know that is going to happen, it helps to anticipate the questions. But how can a mere law student guess what an all-knowing law professor will inquire about? As you read cases, here are a few questions that you can ask that will help you be ready when it's your turn to take the hot seat:

1. What are the assumptions? Every argument rests on assumptions. Assumptions are not all bad. They free you from having to prove the same thing over and over again and allow arguments to flow from a fixed starting point. But because assumptions are accepted without proof, you should know what they are. You should also know what happens to the argument if you change one or more of the assumptions. At some point, changing the assumptions enough will make any argument seem ridiculous. You want to understand that point where the argument breaks down, so you can analyze the argument in its weakest case, not just the strong case presented.

2. Is that really true? Judicial decisions are full of statements about the world. These statements range from the sublime to the mundane. But one thing you know about judges: they are lawyers, not researchers or scientists, so it is important to ask whether the facts and assumptions that underlie their legal opinions are really true. Many times they are not.

3. How do you know? When you're weighing whether to accept an argument, even an argument written by a judge a hundred years ago and taught to generations of law students, it's critical to evaluate the source of the information. If you press this point, you will be surprised by the flimsiness of the foundation upon which many arguments are based.

4. Does that make sense? Even an argument that seems true and has an impeccable pedigree can still be wrong. Especially when you're evaluating a legal rule (as opposed to an empirical fact), you shouldn't forget your common sense. You should compare the rule with what you've learned about people and life just be living in the world. Lawyers and judges sometimes forget that real people have to try to live by the rules they promulgate. You shouldn't.

5. How would that work in the real world? Cases in law school case books are almost invariably extreme and unusual. Its their uniqueness that make the cases interesting for law professors and useful for illustrating a specific point, in the same way a controlled experiment is useful for learning about the much more complex and varied world we live in. You should read the cases with a healthy dose of skepticism, and ask yourself how would the facts and law presented work in the real world.

6. What's the next case? Every judicial decision is decided on the facts presented to the court. Law professors will assume that you know those facts and, if pressed, that you will be able to explain why those facts led to the rule announced by the court. To be really prepared, ask yourself what's the next case. What facts could change that would affect the outcome? What could happen that would make the case more difficult to decide? What would have to happen to make the case come out the opposite way?

As you read the cases in your case book, remember that judges have often turned out to be wrong and their decisions overturned. Even cases that have withstood the test of time have invariably been criticized. Finally, even the most well reasoned argument has its limits, at which point the argument no longer holds. Find those criticisms and those limits and you will shine in even the most exacting socratic dialogue.

By the way, these questions are not just useful for analyzing law school cases and preparing for classes. They can help you analyze any argument, including your own. The more critical you are in your thinking and the more you demand that your own beliefs and opinions can withstand the heat of light, the better, and more successful, lawyer you will be.

Remembering September 11

2006-09-11T16:34:00.000-07:00

Today, we remember the tragic events of September 11. As we remember the victims of the terrorist attacks of that day and the sacrifices of the brave men and women who have fought and continue to fight the war on terror, it is also worth remembering the role that our courts have played in the aftermath of that day. Much has already been written about this, so I'll just supply the links and invite you to read these decisions and judge them for yourselves.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

ACLU v. National Security Agency

Study Groups...Should You or Shouldn't You?

2006-09-10T19:11:00.000-07:00

Studying is a big part of a law student's life, and one of the most common approaches to tackling the large amount of material that must be digested is to form study groups. Should you join a study group? Like all good law school answers, the answer is a solid maybe. Here are some of the pros and cons.

Let's start with the pros.

Make Friends. Studying is lonely business, but with the large amount of material to learn, someimes, it's hard to put down the books to connect with your fellow students. Study groups are a good way to get some social interaction. Even if you are a perfectly balanced person, your classmates might not be, and being part of a study group is a good way to spend time with them. Remember, the friends you make during law school will be part of your life long after you can't remember the elements of res ipsa loquitur.

Learn Something. Obviously, none of us has a monopoly on good ideas, and sitting down with other smart people to talk about the things you're learning in class can be a good way to benefit from their insights. Also, talking out your own ideas has the benefit of solidifying and clarifying your own thoughts as well.

Force Yourself to Study. Let's face it: learning might be fun, but studying is a drag-- especially when you're studying in the large quantities required to do well in law school. Study groups are one strategy to make studying more bearable. You may still be in misery, but at least you'll have company.

So what are the cons of study groups?

Wasting Your Time. As it turns out, study groups are not really a great way to learn. All of the answers to all of your questions are in your books, and the more time you spend hanging out with your friends in a study group, the less time you're spending reading those books. Most of the time in a study group you're going over things you already know rather than learning things you didn't. Even worse, study groups have a nasty tendency to degenerate into bitch-sessions about the class, the professor, or all the studying that you have to do (which, by the way, you're not doing while you're complaining about it).

Not Effective A study group can serve two purposes. It can help you learn or it can help you make friends. But in my experience, it's not really a great way to do either. I've already talked about the learning part. As for making friends, the best way to make friends is to have fun together or to work together to accomplish a difficult task. Study groups aren't very fun and they have no defined task to accomplish. If making friends is the goal then, studying on your own and later going out to the movies with your classmates will probably work better and be more fun. And if you're looking for challenges to tackle, one of the many extracurricular activities at the school is probably a better place to find rewarding experiences that bring people together.

In the end, I'm on the fence about study groups. In general, I don't think that they're very good ways to learn or all that much fun, so on that score, my advice would be to avoid them and concentrate on studying on your own. On the other hand, if all of your friends are gunners aiming for the top grades, it might be hard to convince them to hang out without the pretext of a study group. So, if study groups are the only way to socialize with your classmates, you should definitely participate because years later, when law school is a distant memory, the friends you make in law school will be an important part of your life.

Starting Salaries

2006-09-07T09:55:00.000-07:00

One of the big questions future lawyers want to know is how much money will I make after law school. For those who go to work at large law firms, the answer is a lot.

According to the New York Times, starting lawyers fresh out of law school can earn base salaries of up to $145,000 per year in New York and $135,000 per year in other large markets, and that's not including year-end bonuses. That's a lot of money any way you slice it, especially for someone with essentially no experience at all.

Higher salaries, however, don't come without a price. Every dollar that a firm pays to its associates is one less dollar that goes into the pockets of the firm's partners. Since law firm partners don't like to see their own salaries go down while the salaries of their hired worker bees goes up, law firms need to increase revenues to cover the cost of higher salaries.

In a world where total revenue is equal to hours billed multiplied by the hourly rate, there are essentially only two ways for a law firm to make more money: increase hourly rates, which clients don't like, or increase hours worked, which associates don't like. So law firms have to strike a balance between charging clients what the market will bear for legal services, demanding that associates work as many hours as can be had, and paying associates the right amount to keep them working and happy.

Finding that balance is not always easy. As the Times reports, one of the reasons for the current wave of salary increases was "the need to stanch attrition of their current associates." More money, however, goes a long way to making the long hours bearable.

For the whole story, read "For New Lawyers, the Going Rate Has Gone Up."

Get ready for the real world

2006-09-07T08:31:00.000-07:00

You would think that after forcing law students to spend three years and $100,000 on their legal education, law schools would graduate students fully ready to practice law. Unfortunately, most of the time that's not the case. While law schools are good at laying the intellectual foundation for how to think about legal problems, they often are not very good at teaching their students how to be lawyers. Legal Times has an article about one law school's attempt to fill the gap by pairing law students with practicing lawyers to serve as "mentors." The purpose of the program is to prevent young lawyers from makings basic, rookie mistakes that can hurt their careers before they even have a chance to get started. Here's some of the concerns:

The most common student violations involve basic professional behaviors, preventable mistakes a summer or new associate cannot afford to make on the job. They include having poor communication skills (failing to return phone calls or e-mails), lacking diligence (failing to efficiently juggle multiple projects or cutting corners on assignments), missing deadlines, and making errors in record-keeping. Habits begin early, even among the most intellectually talented students, so it remains important to expose students early to real-world skills they will need as associates.

Now, returning phone calls and not missing deadlines are certainly not rocket science, and they may seem completely obvious. But it is astonishing how many young lawyers fail to do these simple things. I would add to this list one more area where I've seen many a young lawyer get tripped up: failing to keep supervisors and clients (if appropriate) informed about their progress. People like to know you're working, even if you're not finished, so regular progress reports are very helpful.

Courtesy, thoughtfulness, professionalism. These qualities go a long way towards a successful legal career and they merit careful attention even though they are largely ignored by law schools. Whether or not your law school has a mentor program, it is a good idea to start thinking about work habits and workplace social skills because, in the long run, those habits and skills often make a bigger difference in your career than anything you learn in law school.

For the full article, you can read: "Mentors Mind the Legal Gap."

A fun way to sharpen your critical reasoning skills

2006-09-06T10:02:00.000-07:00

I can't guarantee that this will raise your score on the LSAT at all, but there is a fun podcast (available through iTunes) called "LSAT Logic in Everyday Life." It applies the logic you need to succeed on the LSAT to arguments that are being tossed around in current events. It's fun to see how many flawed arguments important people use, and it's good practice, not just for the LSAT, but also for law school to start thinking critically about other people's arguments (and your own too, for that matter).

Law Student Blogs Galore

2006-09-02T21:40:00.000-07:00

One of the best ways to get more information about what law school is really like to check out the many, many blogs from people in law school right now. Clever WoT has compiled an amazing list of law student blogs. Check it out when you have a chance.

Six Myths and Truths About Law School

2006-09-01T19:56:00.000-07:00

The first year of law school is the hardest. This is true not just because law school is hard but because most new law students don't understand the game. Spencer Overton has written an excellent article that can help you avoid making the rookie mistakes that many first-years make.

His "Myth #2: I’ve got three years to do well" is especially important:

You need to figure out the game the first two to three months. Job opportunities, law review, and most everything else is based on first year. Next fall you’ll be interviewing and looking for a job, and most interviewers are not going to care about undergrad, your community service, moot court, your potential to rebound, or anything else. They are going to look at first-year law school grades (they are busy and are looking for a quick way to determine which students they should agree to interview), and whether or not you’ll fit in to their work environment.

The points he makes about studying early and often, if taken to heart, can make a big difference.

I highly recommend that your read the whole article: "Advice for New Law Students of Color." (By the way, don't be put off by the title if you're not a student of color. Like most good advice, Professor Overton's suggestions are good no matter what race, color or creed you are.)

Preparing for Law School Exams

2006-08-29T17:40:00.000-07:00

Law school can be an exciting place. You are learning about fascinating, new concepts from some of the most distinguished thinkers in the field surrounded by bright, motivated, and engaging fellow students. Law schools might even be considered fun if they didn't have to go spoil the whole thing with exams. Yet at the end of every semester, law school students everywhere begin to sweat about the high-stakes tests that play such a large role in determining what their futures will be like.

Because of the importance of these final exams, the smart thing to do is to get ready by studying, not just the night before the exam, but regularly and consistently throughout the semester. But when it is getting to crunch time and you're only a few weeks away from the big test-taking event, what should a law student do? The University of Chicago Law School offers some solid advice:

In the few weeks before a final, law students, who should already have a grasp of all key concepts through previous study, must attempt to synthesize those concepts into a greater understanding of the "forest." During this time, students should identify overarching concepts around which the course has revolved. This process can be done by examining a comprehensive syllabus (if such a syllabus has been handed out), using the table of contents in the casebook, or identifying main topics through a perusal of lecture notes.

The most important point here is that, at the end of the day, the smart students make sure that they understand the "overarching concepts" presented in the course. Yes, the details are important, but these larger concepts are what put the details into a coherent picture that demonstrates that you really understand the subject matter and that gets you the best grades.

The Chicago piece also has an interesting discussion of the three main types of law school exam question: issue spotters, thematic questions, and brainstorming. Although I have written before about the importance of outlining an answer before you begin writing, Chicago makes the same point forcefully:

Outlining a law school answer is probably the most important step in taking a law school exam.

Outlining has the twin virtues of making the answer clearer in your mind and in the mind of your professors, which generally means better answers and better grades.

For more tips and ideas, check out the full article: "Preparation for law school exams."

Detecting BS

2006-08-23T09:47:00.000-07:00

In law school and in the law in general, you will meet lots of people who have no idea what they're talking about. That's why your ability to detect BS is critical. Scott Berkun has an interesting post on how to tell when people are just blowing smoke.

His first suggestion is to challenge people with the question "how do you know." You will be amazed at how little support most people have for their own opinions. (By the way, apply this technique with care because if you do it too often to friends and families, they may not like being constantly questioned!)

His second suggestion is to ask "what is the counterargument." This is really useful because coming up with counterarguments on the spot can be hard and it is much easier to let the other person come up with those arguments for you.

Interestingly, both of these techniques are frequently practiced by law school professors who use the socratic method to teach, so when you speak, be prepared to deal with both. (Law school survival tip: in a law school class, the basis for your opinions should usually be grounded in a case you've read for class or in something that has actually happened to you in the real world. That way you can point to something concrete when asked how you know what you're saying. As for coming up with counterarguments, a good source of counterarguments are in comparing the reasoning in majority opinions and in dissents. Study these counterarguments to impress your professor that you understand the issues deeply enough to be able to state both sides of a position.)

Check out Scott's full article for more tips and ideas for detecting BS, and thank you to Lifehacker for flagging this article.

Big Fish, Little Fish: The Way of the World of Law Firms

2006-08-22T10:50:00.000-07:00

Law firms range in size from multi-billion dollar, international operations to the modest solo practitioner in a small office. What all law firms and lawyers share in common, however, is the need to compete for legal work from clients with money to pay.

To compete for clients, lawyers engage in some standard strategies (usually after hiring a high-priced consultant to get them going):

Networking.
Giving speeches.
Writing articles.
Advertising.
Newsletters.

Despite this heated work, there is a striking stability in the experience of law firms. The biggest law firms generally get the biggest clients and the biggest cases, and things trickle down from there until you reach the smallest, poorest practices serving the smallest and poorest clients. (Note: "poor" here is a relative term because to make a living lawyers need to find clients who can pay for legal services. Interestingly, because legal services for the very poor are often subsidized, the poorest people in terms of receiving legal help are often low-income people who are not truly indigent. But I digress.)

Jeff Lipshaw at PrawsBlog argues persuasively that, in the end, the law firm's brand matters most. Even very strong regional law firms that hired from the same top law schools as the national and international mega-firms consistently fail to compete with the big firms. Or as Lipshaw puts it: "for bet-the-company M&A work, the [regional] firms were wasting their precious marketing dollars competing against the goliaths of the industry."

In a world where defining quality can be extremely elusive, branding and prestige can be self-fulfilling prophecies.

Timeline for Applying to Law School

2006-08-20T20:34:00.000-07:00

Summer's over, and that means only one thing...ok, it can mean a lot of things, but for people interested in going to law school, among other things, one thing fall means is that it's time to start the law school application process. About.com has a useful timeline to get you started on planning out your strategy. Here's what they suggest for September:

Order the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) catalog and application or complete an electronic version.
Finish writing your personal statement.
Update your resume.
Ask faculty for letters of recommendation.
Ask a professional acquaintance or employer for a reference. Provide employers with a sample reference.
Request financial aid information.
Continue to visit Law schools.

Nothing fancy here, but still solid advice. And the earlier you start, the earlier you finish and the less you have to worry about. Good luck!

Should You Prep for Law School?

2006-08-16T17:15:00.000-07:00

Since LexPrep offers law school prep courses, our opinion on the value of a law school prep course is pretty obvious. But our view is not unanimous. Law Professor Dave Hoffman recently argued that law school prep courses are unlikely to improve performance in law school.

Here's the essence of his argument:

Grading in law school, to the extent that it is rational, is tied closely to the skill of taking a particular professor's exam. That skill is partly a method problem, and partly a product of absorbing the professor's approach to legal reasoning. That is, since law is a predictive enterprise, better exam answers usually (at least to me) predict the law in ways reflected from classroom discussion. Most of the time, you won't be able to learn that from an outline, and you won't be able to learn that from some other professor, no matter how gifted, six months before the fact.

In other words, knowing more about the law doesn't help on law school exams because what really counts is "absorbing the professor's approach to legal reasoning."

The trouble with this argument is that most law school exams don't test "the professor's approach to legal reasoning" because they are not really "predictive exercises." Most of law school is not about predicting the future but rather understanding the past as recorded in court decisions. As a result, the most common law school exam question asks students to spot issues and these "issues" are almost always taken more or less directly from these previously decided cases. (If you want to see some real law school exams, you can click here for some examples from Harvard Law School).

Why do I say that most issues on law school exams come from previously decided cases? Two reasons. First, only if the issue has already been decided by the courts can a professor be sure that he or she knows what the right answer is. Second, although Professor Hoffman is probably right that law school grades are not always perfectly "rational", law professors try to be fair and the most objective measure of performance in a class is whether the student demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the law as it is.

It is certainly true that a law school prep course is not a substitute for law school, but LexPrep, at least, doesn't pretend to be. It is also certainly true that many law students get through law school just fine without any kind of formal preparation. I know because I was one of them. But looking back, I remember many of my classmates who seemed fully conversant in legal lingo and I wish I had known a little more earlier in the process. Many incomprehensible reading assignments and hard-to-follow class discussions would have been infinitely simpler if I had understood the basic concepts.

It's hard to argue that more preparation is a bad thing, and in the end, even Professor Hoffman doesn't try to make that case when he says that "a prep course can't hurt you." But despite his reservations about prep courses, Professor Hoffman himself says that his bar exam prep course was "the most rewarding law education experience I've ever had." Professor Hoffman is not alone in feeling that way, and this common experience demonstrates that prep courses, taught in the right way, can really bring have a big impact on a law student.

Of course, as I said at the outset, I'm biased. I think a law school prep course can make a big difference, and I started LexPrep because I wished someone had told me more about what I was getting into before I started law school. So I'm biased, and I admit it. On the other hand, Professor Hoffman is biased too, and to his credit, he admits his bias when he writes, "At some level, I may be resisting the idea of preparatory courses because I want my view of contract law to the first that my students hear."

But Professor Hoffman's resistance is misplaced because a good law school prep course does not attempt to present grand theories of the law that are the bread-and-butter of a law professors work. Rather, a law school prep course is supposed to be an understandable and memorable introduction to key concepts so that students can fully appreciate the nuances of the law that law professors focus on in their classes. Seen in this light, a good law school prep course complements and enhances the law school educational experience. Which, of course, is the whole point.

Summertime

2006-08-07T17:30:00.000-07:00

With the temperature still in the stratosphere, it seems almost impossible, but summer is almost over. And amidst the flurry of back-to-school sales, what are future law students doing with their time? At this point, most are thinking about signing up for the LSAT in October, if they haven't already taken it. The ambitious among them are thinking about (or may already be taking) one of the ubiquitous LSAT preparation courses that are out there. Some may already be reading law books looking for a head start.

Not every moment (and certainly not every moment in summmer) should be about getting into law school, but there are a few things, aspiring law students can do to get them ready for the fall:

1. Make Friends with Your Pre-Law Adviser. If you're still in college (and even if you've already graduated), it pays to get to know your school's pre-law adviser. Pretty much every college has one. Pre-law advisers have watched hundreds of graduates from your school navigate their way from undergrad to law school. They will be able to help you realistically gauge your chances at different law schools and help you craft an admissions strategy. Their wisdom and experience can spare you from the anxiety of making your way through the unfamiliar law school admissions process on your own.

2. Get Brochures and Applications. It may be too early to start actually writing your application (but you would be surprised how quickly the time goes by!), but it makes sense to start collecting brochures and applications from the schools that you're interested in. That way, when you're ready to work on your applications, you have them on hand and ready to go. Also, your application will be better and the writing process will be easier if you let the questions percolate in your mind for some time before you sit down to write.

3. Identify your references. You'll need letters of reference for your law school application. You should know who you want to write these letters for you. If no one comes to mind immediately, think about who you would like to write you a letter and start thinking about something you could do form a relationship with that person. Even if you already have the perfect people in mind, it is worth spending a little extra time with them over the next few months to keep your image fresh in their minds and perhaps even to help them find the personal anecdote or two about you that will make your reference letters stand out from the mind-numbing boilerplate letters from people who don't really know anything about the person they are writing about.

Getting started early will make the fall application much less stressful and a lot smoother. Enjoy your last days of summer!

Which Law School Should I Go To?

2006-08-02T17:44:00.000-07:00

One of the biggest decisions a prospective law student makes is where to go to law school. Obviously, this decision depends in part on which law schools you get into. But once you have your acceptances in hand, how do you decide where to go?

Everyone is familiar with law school rankings. U.S. News has the most famous rankings, but other competing rankings exist. All other things being equal, most people will choose to attend the law school with the highest ranking. The more prestigious the school, the better the job prospects and opportunities after law school.

Rankings are fine as far as they go, and for many people, they will be the decisive consideration. But let me point out two other things that might influence which law school is best for you.

Clinics. In addition to regular classes, most law schools offer their students the opportunity to do real legal work for real clients through clinics. In a law school clinic, students work under the supervision of a licensed attorney who is part of the school's clinical faculty. Typically, clinics focus on providing legal services for the poor, but there are many different types of clinics, including clinics devoted to environmental litigation or to assisting prosecutors or even to setting up small businesses. Clinics are a great way for a law student to get hands-on experience working as a lawyer. Even though the students' work is supervised (as it must be to comply with the law), generally students are given lots of lattitude to make the important decisions in handling a matter. For most law students, this will be the most significant case management responsibility that they will have for many years. Students who participate in clinics often cite them as the best part of their law school experience. So...when checking out a law school, be sure to find out more about the clinics offered. A good clinic in an area that you're interested in can be more important than a notch or two in the law school rankings.

Location. Law schools recruit students from all over the country, but law school graduates tend to congregate around where they went to law school. If you know that you want to live and work in Washington State, it generally makes more sense to go to a law school in Seattle than one in Miami, even if the Florida school is a few rungs higher in the law school rankings. Why? Because many more graduates of the Seattle school will be working in Washington. Working near fellow alumni confers an instant networking advantage. While the bread and butter of the practice of law is dispassionate analysis and reasoning, the bread and butter of the business of law is relationships. Sharing an alma mater is a great way to establish a relationship that can advance your career, no matter what direction your law school degree takes you. While legal talent is a wonderful thing, having a home town advantage can make a big difference in your career.

Picking the right law school is highly individualized and so you need to think about your own circumstances and goals. The LSAC has a useful guide to start researching law schools. The good news is that today there are lots of law schools and lots of information about those schools, so you should be able to find the schools that are best for you.

Election 2006

2006-08-01T14:28:00.000-07:00

This is slightly off-topic, but the New York Times has a great interactive map that lets you visualize different outcomes for the November 2006 elections. According to the Times' predictions, it looks like the Democrats will be picking up seats in both the House and Senate, but it is not clear if they will have enough to form a majority in either house of Congress.

Dick Cheney-First Amendment Paragon or Scourge?

2006-07-26T10:10:00.000-07:00

One of the profound lessons of law school is that even the most revered rules of law are subject to intense disagreement and debate. The First Amendment is a great example of this. On its face, the rule could not be more clearly stated: "Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech." No room for doubt there, right?

The law books are already full of examples of hotly contested disputes over precisely what those ten words mean and it appears that another high-profile one is in the making. Dick Cheney has been sued by Joseph Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame for allegedly disclosing Plame's identity as CIA agent in retaliation for public statements made by Wilson criticizing the Bush administration's decision to go to war in Iraq. The lawsuit alleges violations of Wilson's freedom of speech and unlawful retaliation. (Check out the full complaint on the Smoking Gun.)

This is exactly the kind of case that gets law professors everywhere excited. Who is in the right? Are Wilson and Plame victims of an oppressive government that punished them for speaking out. Or is Cheney a victim of a frivolous lawsuit that means to punish him for speaking out to the press and exposing a bias that Wilson and Plame preferred to keep secret?

This debate will play out in the courts, of course, but first the law professors will weigh in, and a fascinating exchange has already occurred between Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar and Duke University Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky. Studying this exchange will give you a good insight into the kind of debates you will encouter in law school.

Professor Amar casts Cheney as the good citizen providing crucial information to the public through the press:

Cheney should reiterate that he and his fellow whisperers were speaking to responsible journalists, and that the whisperers' purpose was to give the journalists background for understanding the possible bias of Mr. Wilson and certain groups within the CIA.

Professor Chemerinsky counters that criticizing Wilson by outing his wife as a CIA agent served no public purpose and was simply a mean-spirited attack to serve Cheney's partisan agenda:

Cheney, Libby, and Rove did nothing noble in disclosing Ms. Wilson's [i.e., Valerie Plame's] identity as a secret agent. The information they leaked gave the public no information they needed to know. There was no greater good served by this leak. They simply ruined her career and put people in danger out of a partisan desire to embarrass a critic of the administration.

So who's right? We'll find out when the courts finally finish with this case. For me, a critical piece of information will be whether Ms. Plame's identity as a CIA agent was classified. Revealing classified information is against the law, and it is no defense that the motive for revealing that information was so that the public would be better informed.

But don't listen to me. Read Professor Amar's position and Professor Chemerinsky's response and judge for yourself.

Who Is Applying to Law School

2006-07-23T20:16:00.000-07:00

The folks who bring you the LSAT, the Law School Admission Council, have compiled some interesting statistics about who applies to law school. Here is what they have to say:

"For Fall 2005, about 25 percent of all law school applicants were 22 years old or younger; about 37 percent were 23 to 25; and about 19 percent were betwen ages 26 and 29. Applicants who were 30 to 34 years old made up about 9 percent of the applicant "pool, while 10 percent were over 34 years old.

"A growing number of women began to apply to America’s law schools beginning in the early 1970s, when only 10 percent of all law students were women. Currently, nearly one-half of all applicants are women.

"For Fall 2005, there were over 26,500 applicants. The proportion of all applicants who identified themselves as being from a specific minority group has been relatively stable over the past 12 years at between 25 percent to 28 percent of the total applicant pool. And, the number of minority applicants has more than tripled over the past 21 years."

The LSAC web site has lots of useful information. Check it out when you get a chance.

Why is law school so hard?

2006-07-18T20:59:00.000-07:00

Ask pretty much any first-year law student, and they will all tell you the same thing: law school is hard. But why is that? Law students are uniformly a smart, hard-working, motivated bunch. To get to law school, each student had to study hard, get reasonably good grades in college, and probably participate in some significant extra-curricular activities to boot. So why is it that this highly select group of overachievers all seem to struggle at law school? A number of reasons.

1. The case method. College textbooks are writtento tell you the most important information that you need to know in a way that you will most easily absorb it. (At least that's the idea anyway). Pretty logical, right, since the purpose of the book is for students to learn? Maybe, but that's just not how things are done at law school. Instead, you read edited, but real, judicial decisions written by real judges. The trouble is that the judges are writing those decisions to resolve disputes, not to teach law students about the law. As a result, even the brightest students can get lost.

2. No big picture lectures. In college, your professors tried to highlight the main points of the lesson. Not so in law school. Instead, law professors review the cases you've read in exacting detail, going over who was involved, what happened, how the court ruled, and why. This is very useful in helping to understand each individual case, but it doesn't necessarily give students the big picture. Without some big picture perspective, the law can seem like a string of unrelated points, and remembering a string of unrelated points is next to impossible.

3. No feedback. In most college courses, at some point there's the opportunity to get feedback on how you're doing. Whether it is in the form of small discussion groups, homework assignments, or mid-term exams, this feedback helps you figure out how well you're doing in the course. Law school is not so informative. Instead, you go through the entire semester listening to lectures and sometimes answering questions, until you reach the final exam, which is the first--and last--time the professor will evaluate you. Not knowing how you're doing can make even the most confident law student nervous.

4. The workload. The amount of reading law students are expected to get through each week is staggering. And even though the weekly assignments may be as long as a John Grisham novel, they certainly don't read like one. Just figuring out what is going on in the dense and often tortured writing of judges from long, long ago can leave even the brightest law students scratching their heads. Falling behind is not an option. Not only would you risk public humiliation if you were called on in class to explicate a reading you skipped, the next week brings another avalanche of reading that makes it nearly impossible to catch up.

So...law school is hard, probably harder than it needs to be because of the way the information is taught. Just being aware of the problem will make the experience easier. At least you'll know that you are not alone.

At Least You'll Always Have Your Degree

2006-07-11T19:48:00.000-07:00

An old story goes something like this: I was young, energetic, and idealistic. I started my new job with nothing but my law degree and my integrity. I still have the degree.

What happens to the other part? During his confirmation hearings, now Chief Justice John Roberts was asked repeatedly about his thoughts on this or that legal topic. He consistently dodged the questions by saying he couldn't comment because the issue "might" one day come before the Supreme Court and he did not want to give the impression of having pre-judged an issue, or even of having ever given the issue the least bit of thought.

To pin him down, some of the senators questioning Roberts shifted tactic and asked him about the cases he had litigated as a lawyer in his long and distinguished career. Roberts would not be trapped so easily. Every position that he ever took in court, he would lecture the senators, was solely to advocate for his clients' causes. Did he personally believe in any of those positions? According to Roberts, he had never given the question the least bit of thought.

In one sense, Roberts' responses were entirely consistent with generally accepted legal ethics. In their first semester of law school, law students are told that lawyers must be "zealous advocates" of their client's cause. In other words, lawyers are there to help clients win cases. Curiously, the question of whether the client should or should not win is not part of the equation. Put another way, the moral component of the practice of law is missing.

By taking the moral component out, lawyers can justify to themselves advocating positions that they do not really believe in. The adversarial system, the argument goes, will sort out who is right and who is wrong, so what I think about the question is really irrelevant.

And that is where the integrity goes. Over time, slowly, imperceptibly, integrity can be eroded until figuring out what is "right" depends entirely on who is paying the lawyer's bills. The problem with this is that, consciously or unconsciously, acutely for some and subliminally for others, the candle of idealism that lit the young lawyer's way to the practice goes out. And with it, goes a sense of purpose and meaning.

I'ver written before about some of the dangers of life in the law. And here is yet another one. Something is wrong if after a lifetime in the law you cannot identify any causes or clients that you really believed in. Somewhere in the course of making a living, a lawyer needs to make room for making a life that they can believe in. Every client may be entitled to representation, but you don't have to take every case. You don't have to argue every position. You don't have to turn off all senses of right and wrong. By making choices about who to represent and what positions to assert, you can stay true to yourself and still live up to the highest ideals of the profession.

At the end of it all, you'll still have your degree. But you may have something more as well.

Five Things I Wish I Knew Before Law School

2006-04-26T21:33:00.000-07:00

If you're reading this blog, you're interested in learning about law school and the law. By now, you've probably taken pre-law courses, watched more law-related movies and t.v. shows than you can count, and maybe even talked to a few real lawyers. Here are a few of the things that I wish I had known about law school before I started.

1. It's who you know. Just as important as learning legal rules and mastering the techniques of legal argument and analysis is making connections with as many people as possible. This includes not just fellow students, but law professors, administrators, career counselors, clinic leaders, and pretty much anybody else you can meet. In law school, making friends and networking is easier than you think. While college brings together an incredible diversity of people and interests, by the time you get to law school, you have a group that is basically interested in the same things. These connections will create opportunities for you far into the future in ways that you cannot imagine or predict.

2. The answers are in the book. One of the great things about math textbooks is that, at least for some of the problems, the answers are in the back of the book. Law school can look extremely daunting because the answers are scattered thoughout the hard-to-understand judicial decisions that are sometimes contradictory. Law professors sometimes contribute to the confusion by focusing on areas of tension and disagreement. Despite the very real and extensive gray areas in the law, however, many, many rules are well-settled and those are all spelled out in the case books. The long judicial decisions provide the explanations and justifications for those rules. If you focus on each case, determine what the rule is, and why the rule is, you will excel on all of your exams.

3. Keep up. In law school, the courses move too quickly and there is too much reading material to catch up if you fall behind. While some law students may succeed by cramming at the end of a semester, for most people that is a loser's strategy. Everyone works at their own pace. You need to decide how much time you need to devote to studying to understand the material and then you need to commit to devoting that time every single week.

4. Do one thing really well. Grades are not the only thing that matter at law school. Extracurriculars count too, and in law school you will have an enormous number of options available to choose from. When deciding which activities to pursue, keep in mind that it is better to do one or two activities and excel at them than to do many activities and not distinguish yourself in any of them.

5. Relax and have fun. As stressful as law school is, it is nothing compared to how stressful the actual practice of law can be when important parts of people's lives hang in the balance. Law school is a time for learning and explorations, so make you enjoy the experience. It is unlikely that you will ever again be surrounded by so many bright, energetic people with so much free time to get to know each other and the world. So enjoy it!

My Space, Facebook, and the Law

2006-04-09T13:06:00.000-07:00

So what do My Space and Facebook have to do with law or law school? Like most things in our life, usually nothing, but sometimes a lot.

For those of you who have recently arrived from another planet, My Space and Facebook are two of the Internet's most popular web sites where young people can exchange information about each other and form social networks. According to the New York Times:

MySpace, the most popular of the social networking sites, has more than 67 million members, and it adds roughly 250,000 members every day. MySpace is ranked as the second-most visited Web site on the Internet in terms of unique users, after Yahoo, according to ComScore Media Metrix.

As for Facebook, according to the Wikipedia:

As of December 2005, [Facebook] has the largest number of registered users among college-focused sites (at over six million US college student accounts created with an additional 20,000 new accounts being created daily).

That's big. Like many crazes driven by the irrepressible exuberance of youth, these networking sites have excesses. On these sites, among the innocuous lists of favorite friends, music and movies, you can find detailed accounts of drunken parties, sexual escapades, and relationships gone very, very bad. (I won't post links here, but if you're interested, it will not take you long to find examples if you're willing to search).

Besides making for interesting reading, however, these web sites can have ramifications for future lawyers. Besides creating a digital chronicle of youthful excess that might be embarassing in later years, public records of debauchery could affect a future lawyer's ability to obtain a certification of being of a good "moral character."

In California, for example, every applicant to the bar (i.e., every new lawyer) must be certifed by the State Bar as being of good moral character. Particularly, noteworthy is the State Bar's view of drug and alcohol abuse:

Drug and alcohol abuse and dependencies are considered major problems in today's society and as such can be seen in the number of lawyer discipline cases that are directly related to these problems. These issues are of particular concern to the Committee. An applicant's record is reviewed as a whole to see if there appears to be a problem.

When the State Bar reviews your record "as a whole", do you really want it to consider your college hijincks? And even if the State Bar decides it doesn't care, can you be sure that your future employers will feel the same way? The ability to exercise good judgment and discretion is probably the most important skill a lawyer can have. Applying that skill to what you post on the Internet for the world to see is a great start.

A couple of other (law-related) things to think about with these social networking sites:

1. Defamation. Defamation is the publication of false statements about a person that damages his or her reputation. Defamation is easily avoided if you always tell the truth, but even negligent (that is, unintentional) false statements can get you in trouble, so think twice before hurling accusations of bad conduct.

2. Invasion of Privacy. Social networking sites thrive on people exchanging personal information. But sometimes that personal information is not about yourself but rather about other people. In that case, you could get into trouble for publicly disclosing a "private fact." As with defamation, using some common sense before posting naked pictures of your ex-girlfriend can go a long way to avoiding trouble.

3. Sexual Harassment. If you're in college, your school almost certainly has a policy prohibiting sexual harassment. Targeted, nasty postings about another student could generate a sexual harassment claim which no one really needs. Again, the best advice is to save any venom you might have for private grousing sessions and keep that kind of material off the web.

By exercising a little common sense, these social networking sites can be a great place to meet people and to share experiences, while keeping these sites happily irrelevant to your future career.

Should I Go To Law School?

2006-04-02T18:15:00.000-07:00

Should I go to law school? It's a question that every lawyer asked at one time and answered yes. Unfortunately, not every one of them got the answer to that question right.

Law can be an amazing profession. It can also be a huge drag. Studies show that alcoholism, depression, and divorce plague the profession. The Michigan Bar Association reports that about 10% of the U.S. population has a drug or alcohol problem, but for attorneys, the percentage is as high as 18%. Michigan also notes that about 8% of the U.S. population suffers from depression. For attorneys, that number is as high as 24%.

These numbers can be explained, in part, because of the stress, pressure, and long hours attorneys work (for more about the hours lawyers often are called upon to work, you can read our previous post on the Billable Life). But there is also another reason: many lawyers made a poor choice in deciding to attend law school.

Although lawyers can make good money, the lawyer's life is not for everyone. How can you know whether a life in law is right for you? Here are some suggestions:

1. Talk to practicing lawyers and ask them what they do in a typical day. This is the single best way to learn what it's really like to practice law. Do not, however, let the lawyers regale you with war stories about colorful clients and unexpected victories. These stories are like big fish stories: they're fun to listen to if you don't really believe that everything is exactly accurate. Instead, what you're interested in is finding out what happens in a typical day. When do they get to the office? What do they do? Who do they talk to? When do they go home? If law is going to be a career, you want to know what the next 30 years are going to look like, not just the highlights.

2. Talk to people who work with lawyers. Most future law students-- like the vast majority of the population-- have never had any contact with lawyers. People who work with lawyers like secretaries, paralegals, and clients can give invaluable insights into what lawyers are like. Here, war stories can be extremely useful (as well as entertaining) because for people who work with lawyers, their war stories tend to be about the sometimes crazy things lawyers do.

3. Learn about the law. Here the options are limitless. Reading this blog is a great start and there are countless other legal blogs out in cyberspace. (For two good posts about things to think about before going to law school, click here and here). If you want more information than can be had from reading, many people considering law school first go through a paralegal program for a more structured introduction to legal topics, although the quality of these programs can vary significantly. Another approach is to take a law school prep class. The advantage of law school prep classes over a paralegal program is that they are shorter, cheaper, and more focused on information relevant to future lawyers rather than future paralegals. (Full Disclosure: LexPrep offers law school prep classes).

Whatever you do, you should do your homework. Law school is expensive both in money and in time. Many people who find themselves in law school for the wrong reasons console themselves by saying that there are lots of things a person can do with a law degree other than practice law. While that's true, it should be no surprise that most graduates from law schools go on to be practicing lawyers. (Here's one list of possible jobs after law school. Notice that they almost all involve practicing law).

If you're already thinking about alternatives to practicing law before you even start law school, it probably makes sense to save the three years and $100,000 that law school costs and to start down that alternative path directly. No matter what you decide to do, spending time learning about the law and life as a lawyer will pay large dividends in career satisfaction and hopefully keep you from joining the overly-swolen ranks of lawyers who become unfortunate statistics in job satisifaction surveys.

Laptops in Classrooms

2006-03-29T13:54:00.000-08:00

Yahoo news is reporting that a law professor has banned laptops in her classroom. According to Yahoo:

Professor June Entman says her main concern is that students are so busy keyboarding they can't think and analyze what she's telling them.

Blaming (and banning) laptops for student inattention doesn't seem right. A better solution: more interesting lectures with more class participation.

The Billable Life-Reprise

2006-03-26T21:19:00.000-08:00

In the previous post on the Billable Life, we discussed the impact that the billable hours requirements imposed by large law firms these days have on the lives of their lawyers, especially the ones with young families. But why are the billable hours requirements so high?

It is not because law firms want to torture their associates. For most law firms, they make their money by billing their clients by the hour, so if law firms want to increase profits, they only have three choices. They can increase their billing rates, increase the number of hours they bill, or reduce their costs. Rest assured, law firms do everything they can to reduce their costs or raise their rates, but they are profit maximizers. So law firms also look to their associates to increase revenues through higher hours.

This is neither good nor evil in a moral sense, but it has real consequences, including putting more money in lawyers' bank accounts at the expense of time away from other parts of life.

The Billable Life

2006-03-23T20:33:00.000-08:00

This week the New York Times ran an article on why there are so few women partners at major law firms (the article is free, but registration is required). According to the article, about half of all law students are women, but only about 17 percent of law firm partners are women. So what happens to all the women?

In a journalistic feat, in the space of just one article the NYT manages to offer no fewer than eight possible explanations for why women do not make partner at major law firms. Here are the explanations in the order presented in the article:

1. Women do not have as many mentors as men do.
2. Women have less access to networking and business development opportunity because these critical business relationships are formed by men hanging out in male redoubts (like football stadiums, etc.)
3. Sexual harrassment laws discourage male supervisors from working closely with young female lawyers.
4. Life is lonelier for women at the top because so few women move upward.
5. Women are held to a higher standard than their male colleagues.
6. Women who have babies are branded with the stereotype that they will not work as hard as their male colleagues.
7. Women do not promote themselves as agressively as men.
8. The billable hours requirements wear women out.

While all of these possibilities no doubt play some role in driving women off the partnership track, the most significant factor in my mind are the billable hour requirements--and these cut across gender lines.

These days, at most major law firms, the starting salary for first-year associates fresh out of law school with no experience is between $125,000 and $135,000. According to the Legal Intelligencer, this represents a 247% increase in starting salaries compared to 20 years ago. Law firms, however, are not altruistic angels created to help new lawyers repay their law school debt. Law firms are in business to make money, and so, to paraphrase Spiderman, with great pay comes great responsibility.

What law firms expect in return for the high salaries they pay is a commitment by their lawyers to bill large numbers of hours. At many law firms, especially the larger ones that pay the most, the minimum billable hour requirements are about 2,000 hours per year. At first blush, this does not seem to be an excessive number. If you work 40 hours a week for 50 weeks, you get 2,000 hours. But think about that some more. Two weeks off a year just covers the federal holidays. If you want to take two weeks of vacation off, you're down to 48 weeks and your 40 hours only gets you 1,920 billed hours a year. Skip a week's worth of holidays (i.e., no MLK Day, no President's Day, no Memorial Day, no Fourth of July, and no Labor Day) and you still come up short at 1,960 hours.

Then consider that not every moment of the work day is "billable." In a typical day, in addition to working on billable client matters, an attorney will skim the newspaper, talk to colleagues, surf the Internet, email friends, go to the bathroom, and eat lunch. Some of the time can be made up by working late, on holidays, and on weekends, but it is extremely difficult to keep up.

Next consider that, in addition to "personal" non-billable time (like eating and keeping up with friends and with current events), many firms now require significant amounts of non-billable time devoted to the firm. These activities include such things as attending firm meetings, working on client development, and recruiting new attorneys (for when the current crop begins to burn out).

And finally consider that most law students got into law school and into these prestigious law firms by doing far more than the minimum. Add it all up and the net result is very few waking hours left for anything but work.

To give a flavor of what these billable hour requirements really mean, Yale Law School publishes a piece called "The Truth About Billable Hours." The picture is not pretty. According to Yale, to bill 1,834 hours in a year, you have to be "at work" for 2,434 hours. If you are trying to reach 2,200 billable hours (which is not an uncommon number at many big law firms), then you have to be "at work" 3,058 hours. What does that mean in real life? That means you get up at 7:00 a.m. every day. You spend half an hour getting ready (breakfast, shower, tooth brushing, dressing, etc.) and a half an hour commuting (if you're lucky), and you get to work at 8:00 a.m. You then work from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and get home at 8:30 at night. In addition, three Saturdays a month, you come into work from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. And you do that all year long.

Yale's analysis is a little off because it assumes that attorneys spread the required billable hours evenly throughout the year. The reality is that there are days where you come in at 8 a.m. and leave after midnight and there are weekends where you work both Saturdays and Sundays. Each of those "extra" hours reduces the need to come in on some other day. On the other hand, there are also times when work is slow and it is not possible to bill nine or ten hours in one day. For each of these days, the lost time will have to be made up. God forbid you ever need to take a sick day.

So what is the upshot of the billable life? Lawyers at big law firms have virtually no time for anything but work. For the young and ambitious, this is not necessarily a problem. They like working. More often than not, the problem of work-life balance hits home for young attorneys when they get married and start having children. Suddenly, the lost free time does not just cut into your time to watch re-runs of the Simpsons. It's your kids.

And kids come for young attorneys at the worst possible time in their legal career: right when they should be buckling down and gunning for partnership. According to the Law School Admission Council, 81% of all law school applicants are less than 29 years old, with 62% being younger than 26 years old. At 26, most professional-school bound students don't have families. At 29, they probably still do not have families. The partnership track is now 8-9 years long. So, lawyers are hiting their prime childbearing years of their late 20s and early 30s just as they are beginning to get close to partnership. And this is where many attorneys, especially the female ones, fall off the partnership track. (For a personal account of living, and ultimately rejecting, the billable life, check out Scheherazade's story at Stay of Execution.)

The hardships caused by today's high billable hour requirements fall on both male and female attorneys. In 2002, the American Bar Association published a report decrying the "corrosive impact" of billable hours on such various aspects of law practice as collegiality, case planning, efficiency and training. Although the high billable hours requirements cause lawyers, both male and female, to leave large law firms in droves (think about it: why are these firms constantly recruiting new lawyers?), in the end, when faced with choosing between work and family, on average, more women than men choose family, which leaves women in a minority among law firm partners.

But that is only an average. All law students need to be aware of what law firms' billable hours requirements really mean for their professional and personal lives. Law firms offer the promise of handsome rewards for the most dedicated and hard-working. On the other hand, other careers in law offer more balance in exchange for less pay. As law students plan their legal careers, they should think about what it means to live the billable life and choose judiciously.

A brief look at the first-year law school courses

2006-03-18T20:04:00.000-08:00

Although law school is three years, the first year of law school is where law students are expected to learn the fundamental building blocks of the law. Although the law is vast, complex, and arcane, most legal concepts are drawn from a small core of subject areas. Most first-year law students will be required to take courses in each of these core areas. The core courses are:

1. Contracts
2. Torts
3. Civil Procedure
4. Criminal Law
5. Constitutional Law

What is so special about these five areas of law? Each one represents a different set of rights and obligations, and when taken together, virtually every other part of the sprawling tapestry of law is derived from a combination of one or more of these fundamental areas.

So what are these fundamental areas of law? The law of contracts and torts define how private individuals deal with each other. Contracts are obligations that arise from voluntary agreements, and at its most basic level, the law of contracts sets out how and when the legal system will force people to live up to their promises and when it will not.

In contrast, torts are obligations that do not arise from agreements, but rather are imposed by society to address what happens when one person injures another. In a crowded world, people inevitably bump into each other, and it is the job of the law of torts to tell them when one person must pay the other for the results of the encounter.

While contracts and torts describe what rights and obligations people have, civil procedure explains how those rights and obligations are upheld in the courts. In other words, civil procedure tells you how courts work. The rules of procedure were created to promote truth, fairness, justice, and apple pie (well, maybe not apple pie), but despite those good intentions, the rules are intricate and complex. While many non-lawyers are familiar with contracts and with torts, the arcane world of civil procedure is what makes lawyers irreplaceable in resolving disputes.

Contracts, torts, and civil procedure set out the framework for resolving private disputes among private parties. Criminal law is different. Even though the victims of crime are (usually) people, crimes are considered wrongs against society. Only the government can bring a criminal case. The introductory criminal law course covers the definitions of, and punishments for, the basic crimes like murder, rape, robbery, and battery.

Finally, constitutional law covers the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution plays a unique role in our society. The Constitution is the document that created (constituted) the Federal government and that states many of the individual rights that people hold dear. Although most law students will know something about the Constitution because of the extensive coverage it receives in the press, many first-year law students will be surprised to find that their introductory Con Law class will deal primarily with the structure of government and the powers of Congress, the President, and the Courts. Individual rights like freedom of speech and religion are usually treated in a different course.

So that's what you can expect to learn as a first-year law student. As law students mature into lawyers and then into experienced practitioners, the lessons learned in these introductory courses will continue to provide insights into the solutions of even the most complex legal problems.

Law School Politics Bubble Up to the Supreme Court

2006-03-10T20:46:00.000-08:00

The big legal news this week is the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR) that held that Congress has the power to require law schools to permit military recruiters on campus even though the military does not comply with the law schools' anti-discrimination policies. While pundits and scholars will debate the reasoning and ramifications of this decision, we wanted to comment on some of the things that this lawsuit says about life at law schools.

First, it is helpful to understand the backdrop of the FAIR case. For most law students, the most important interview of their career takes place in the fall of their second year. That's when employers come to campus to interview students for summer jobs that often lead to permanent employment. Even if the student does not ultimately go to work for their second-summer employer, the prestige of that second-summer job can dramatically affect whatjob opportunitie are available to a student after law school.

The second year interview is a highly competitive process for both the students and the employers. From the students' perspective, students with poor grades in their first year of law school may have trouble even getting a job. From the employers' perspective, all employers want to recruit the students with the top grades. Since the top students get numerous offers from these on-campus interviews, most top students will not look beyond the on-campus interview process for employment opportunities. In other words, for employers to get the top talent, they need to participate in these critical on-campus interviews.

Recognizing the power they have over employers, almost all law schools refuse to permit employers to interview on-campus unless they pledge to abide by the law schools' non-discrimination policies. In addition to the usual prohibitions against discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin, many law schools require that employers promise not to discriminate based on sexual orientation. It was that last requirement that affected military recruiters.

The military's official policy prohibits homosexuals from serving. In the early 1990s, this policy came to national attention when the Clinton Administration relaxed the rule to a policy that came to be known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, while homosexuals were still officially barred from the military, they could continue to serve so long as they did not tell anyone about their sexual orientation.

Law Schools responded to this policy by invoking their anti-discrimination rules and barring military recruiters from participating in the critical on-campus interview process. In 1994, Congress struck back by enacting a law that came to be known as the "Solomon Amendment." In essence, the Solomon Amendment stated that if any part of a university denied military recruiters equal access to interviewing students, then the entire university would lose all of its federal funding. For many larger universities, this federal funding amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars. The Solomon Amendment demonstrated that when Congress acts, it can wield a very big stick.

For most of the 1990s, however, the military did not vigorously enforce the Solomon Amendment, and law schools and the military settled into an uneasy truce where military recruiters received some access to on-campus interviews, but not necessarily equal access. Then came 9/11. After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the military informed law schools that if they did not grant equal access to military recruiters, they would lose their federal funding. The universities, which stood to lose enormous sums of federal funding, panicked and ordered their law schools to let the military recruiters in. For their part, the law schools did what lawyers and law students do best: they filed a lawsuit.

To make a long opinion short, after years of litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court held this week that Congress had the power to require the law schools to make an exception to their anti-discrimination rules for military recruiters. The source of this power was the constitutional grant of authority to Congress to raise and support an army and to maintain a navy. In the course of its opinion, the Court also rejected numerous claims that the Solomon Amendment violated the First Amendment rights of the law schools.

As I said at the outset, I won't comment here on whether the Supreme Court's decision was good or bad or indifferent (here is one commentary and here's another). Rather, I want to point out a few things that this decision says about law school. First, the military's insistence on equal access to the on-campus recruiting process underscores just how important those second-year job interviews are. Employers know that this is their best chance to get the top students. This opportunity is so important the U.S. military was willing to get Congress to pass a law and take their case all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court to have access to law students at this critical moment in their careers.

Second, the fight with the military over whether discrimination against homosexuals is appropriate shows that law schools tend to be on the more liberal side of the political spectrum. Without going into who has the better argument on whether discrimination against homosexuals is appropriate, it is enough to note that, while law schools uniformly condemn such discrimination, the rest of the country remains more divided on the point. The military is not the only organization that refuses to admit homosexuals. The clean-cut Boy Scouts of America also took their case to Supreme Court to vindicate their right to exclude homosexuals. In addition, numerous states have passed laws prohibiting gay marriage (even liberal California). Although not agreeing with the military's policy of excluding homosexuals, even the Democratic Leadership Council disagreed with the law schools' decision to exclude military recruiters from the critical on-campus interview process. In the face of this deep division in American culture, the law schools' uniformity on this question is telling of the general slant of law school culture.

Of course, within any given school, some professors are more liberal and some are more conservative, and in theory a law student's performance in a class should not be affected by the political bias of the professors. Nevertheless, this slant is part of what law school is about and future law students should know that, for good or for ill, it exists.

Welcome to LexPrep's Compelling Interests

2006-03-04T13:12:00.000-08:00

Welcome to Compelling Interests, a blog about law school and the law. In this blog, we will discuss legal topics of all stripes, focusing on issues of particular interest to future law students.

Law school is an exciting place. It brings together an amazing collection of talented people. Not everyone who goes to law school is sure that they want to be a lawyer, but they all know that they want an exciting and challenging career, and they are ready to work hard to achieve it. At law school, they will have that chance.

For most law schools, the first year courses are contracts, torts, criminal law, civil procedure and constitutional law. Some schools have other requirements, but these five courses form the core of every first-year law students' experience.

Law students arrive at law school with a wide array of experiences. At one extreme, you have the sons and daughters of law professors and judges who have grown up with the law and already know a great deal about it. At the other extreme, you have art history or some other humanities majors who only decided on law school when they were deciding what to do next after college.

The first classes are often exciting and terrifying at the same time. Before the class, you will have received a reading assignment. For most students, this assignment borders on the incomprehensible. Nevertheless, law professors expect their students to be able to discuss the readings at the first class, and an unlucky few will be called on to describe the facts and the law presented in the readings for the rest of the class.

This is the beginning of the three-year process that law schools use to teach students how to "think like a lawyer." We'll talk more about this process in later posts.