Total Attorneys

I think you're correct that law school fails to teach business strategy. For new law grads who intend to hang their own shingle, this is certainly a skill that they need to have straight of law school. However, for young attorneys who enter big law and even mid-sized firms, they don't need that skill. They don't have any decision-making power. They'll learn what they need to know from equity partners by sitting on committees and learning how those decisions are made. A new attorney will not be able to come into an established firm and revolutionize its business model, because no one really cares what they have to say yet. That's a problem within a firm structure, not within young attorneys.

Your assertion that law schools fail to teach its students how to interact with clients is also off-base. Law schools offer clinical programs that give students the chance to have their own clients.

New attorneys aren't useful because we don't have enough practice. I don't know how law schools can better teach students to strategize for litigation. DePaul University College of Law offers a litigation lab, which pairs students with practicing attorneys to talk through strategy on actual cases. That's a start. But even with that, new attorneys need practice, and law firms just can't afford to invest the time and money into someone new when there are plenty of associates with 3+ years experience out there.

The problems you've identified are not why recent law grads are unemployed.

Hi Franny, thank you very much for taking the time to share your thoughtful observations! Its great to learn about the clinical programs and litigation labs that are available to students. This sounds like a great way for 'soon to be attorneys' to begin getting practice in the field. Maybe it isn’t law schools that are failing at all. Maybe it’s the business model used by many law firms today. They might not be taking advantage of the talents that today’s graduates are bringing to the table. I'd love to hear other thoughts. I feel this is a important topic and one worth discussing.

I'll start with your second question first...the real problem with new graduates is that they just spent three to four years and hundreds of thousands of dollars learning how to think as opposed to how to act as a lawyer. While some of this time is obviously well spent, a great deal more time needs to be spent working as an apprentice lawyer before graduation. Law is the only "profession" where the day you graduate you are supposedly qualified to practice your craft. Electricians are not allowed to practice the minute they finish their classes, they go through a four year apprenticeship program and then they qualify for journeyman status. Doctors are not allowed to treat patients the minute they complete school, they go through rigorous residency and fellowship programs and then they can hang a shingle, perform surgery, etc. While labs and clinical programs are more common in law schools now then they were 10-20 years ago, those programs are still inadequate for preparing new lawyers for the challenges they will face upon entering the legal workplace. I clerked for a small law firm my entire time in law school and both my clients and I are better for it.

In order to pay for this apprenticeship program, a portion of the student's tuition dollars would be allotted to pay firms, non-profits, solo practitioners, etc. to teach law students how to function in the legal environment. Many lawyers/firms would gladly take on subsidized labor and set up teaching programs if they did not have to pay for it themselves. Other professions use union dues and tuition dollars to pay for training so why should the law be any different.

In terms of what needs to be taught to these budding young lawyers during their time in school I would suggest a required survey course and possibly even a semester devoted to the "practical applications of law." While some lawyers will no doubt go on to practice solely in one area of law (i.e. criminal, first amendment, etc.) their entire career and some more will never practice at all in order to call yourself a lawyer you ought to know something about the areas of law that effect the majority of people at some point in their lives. An 18 week course divided into three 6 week sessions covering how to draft documents for and/or participate in real estate transactions, wills and trusts and bankruptcy proceedings would go a long way into making new attorneys more well rounded professionals. This would also give the new attorney the ability to market themselves and make some money until they can find a job practicing their desired discipline of law.

As an employer, the skills I am looking for in a potential new hire are the ability to interact with people, to identify the salient issues in a case, to research said issues and to think on your feet. If a potential candidate can do those things well they will be able to serve my needs and be an asset to firm clients. The other stylistic and practice applications can be learned over time.

Franny's point about large and mid-sized firms is, I believe, the root of the problem you point to. Law schools have traditionally taken their cues about what employers are looking for from those large and mid-sized firms. That is the career that most law students have always been prepared for, whether it's the one they intend to pursue or not. Now, it's the career most law students are being prepared for whether those jobs exist or not.

The problem extends far beyond law students not learning business practices and not learning how to interact with clients, although the former is very true and the latter somewhat true. As Matt mentions, law students spend three years learning "how to think"...but they rarely learn how to DO anything. They don't learn how to draft pleadings, how to get a case filed, how to conduct themselves in the courtroom...to the limited extent that those skills are addressed in legal writing or moot court classes, they are typically geared toward appellate practice. Thus, a law student might well take several classes in criminal law and procedure and learn everything about what violates his future clients' rights, but graduate with no idea what to do about it. A student might take every available course in tax and know the Internal Revenue Code inside out, but escape ever seeing a tax form or any of the documents that might be associated with tax planning.

Clinical programs are a huge step in the right direction, but still limited. And as recently as 15-20 years ago, some top schools were resisting clinical education as a "distraction from the academic atmosphere". That shift finally (and slowly) occurred. The next critical change is for law schools--from Deans and professors through Career Planning & Placement offices--to accept that the large and mid-sized firms no longer represent the most likely path for their students and that many or most of their graduates need to be prepared for something different.