(Image via Getty)
This website has discussed in many prior articles how law schools do little to prepare students for careers as practicing attorneys. Indeed, most of us know how law schools usually just teach skills such as analyzing cases and making arguments rather than the black letter principles that will be helpful in practice. Many law schools tell students that they will learn how to be a practicing attorney during their first job after law school, but if students are paying a boatload of money to earn a JD, it seems only fair that they learn some of that knowledge in school. One reason why law schools do not teach students how to be practicing attorneys is because many law professors have little experience in the practice of law or practiced as attorneys years ago. However, if law professors were required to have more practical experience, perhaps they could more effectively train students to become practicing lawyers when they graduate from law school.
When I was a law student, very few of my full-time professors had significant practical experience. Most had clerked for a federal judge, done a few years in Biglaw, and then went straight into academia. This lack of practical experience impacted many classes. My full-time law professors had very few practical tips to provide in their lectures, likely because they did not know how to handle legal matters in the real world. Whenever someone would ask a question of full-time law professors that related to a practical legal issue, the professors would usually hedge their statements or relate that students will learn answers to such questions in practice. That made my law school experience less meaningful, since I kept learning the same case-method skills in class over three years rather than collecting the practical knowledge that would be helpful in practice.
Some law professors may claim it is not their job to provide practical advice to students. Indeed, many law professors may point to their scholarship, including articles, presentations, seminars, and the like as their primary academic output. However, law students are not paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to earn a law degree in order to enjoy the benefits of a professor’s scholarship. Rather, the students are usually attending law school as a steppingstone to enter the legal profession. This would be made much easier if law professors could provide practical advice to students so that law school graduates are better able to face the challenges faced by the practice of law.
In addition, legal scholarship does not have much of an impact on the legal profession. It is very rare to see a scholarly article cited by most state or federal judges outside of some appellate opinions, so scholarship does not ordinarily have an impact on the judiciary in run-of-the-mill matters. Many journals (and there are hundreds of law journals across the country) are not periodically read by individuals within the legal profession. In many respects, the main outcome of legal scholarship is to promote the careers of law professors, and to give scholars credentials that they can use to earn tenure, secure different positions, and advance in their careers. Naturally, a handful of academics and journals do have a significant impact on the legal profession, but the vast majority of scholarship is not impactful and should not be considered the most valuable output of law professors.
I previously wrote an article about how adjunct professors can enrich the law school experience, since many adjunct professors are practicing attorneys who can provide practical advice in their lectures. Indeed, I had the benefit of learning from some great adjunct professors as a law student, who would literally travel to the law school from their law offices and impart practical advice in their lectures. I am not saying that full-time law professors should be entirely replaced with adjunct professors. Adjunct professors are often extremely difficult to hunt down for recommendations, questions, and feedback, which makes sense given the small sum of money they typically earn to teach, and their other obligations. In addition, adjunct professors are less likely to be involved with campus activities, which can be an enriching part of being a law student.
However, there is no reason why law schools should not require law professor candidates to have more practical experience, or at least give more preference to individuals who have such experience. Law professors do not even need to have substantial practical experience to learn much of the hands-on background they should have in a given area of law. Depending on the subject, law professors could likely benefit from as little as five to seven years of practical experience, and this could greatly enhance the instruction they provide to students.
Let me just say emphatically that I have a lot of respect for law professors, and some of my own law professors had a profound impact on me. In addition, law professors have been very supportive of my blogging over the years, and I have had some enriching correspondences with law professors over time. I hope that law professors and others will communicate with me about this article and let me know about any perspectives I may have missed. In addition, some law schools have solid clinical programs that can provide invaluable practical training to students. Nevertheless, if law schools want to better prepare their students to enter the practice of law, they should hire law professors that have more practical experience.
Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.