Does Law School Prepare You to Practice Law? Part 2

In response to my previous article, "Does Law Schoolrun a departmental team within a corporation? And,
Prepare You to Practice Law? Part 1", Denis Campbellafter studying finance, accounting, marketing, sales, and
put forth the anti-practice teaching argument:human resources in detail, I believe the answer is "yes."
"This opens an important debate about the purpose ofAn accounting degree may not make you a skilled
schooling. An MBA does not prepare one to lead aauditor, but it will allow you to effectively evaluate
corporation. An MS in Accounting does not a skilledincome statements, complete tax returns, and
auditor or tax advisor make. An MA does not prepareunderstand and maintain the finances of a company to
a writer to win a Pulitzer Prize. What higher educationwork effectively in a junior position right away. Also,
is supposed to do is teach one how to think andMFA programs in writing do little else but teach
rationalise one's way through problems."students to write. Many talented students have
However, another commenter, Matthew Homann,graduated from the famous University of Iowa writing
contended:program with a completed novel and a publishing deal.
"In my view, the only people who don't realize lawLaw students are not asking for law schools to
schools are trade schools are the Professors andprepare them to sit first chair in an antitrust trial upon
Deans. Law schools don't teach students to do 1/10thgraduation, or to be ready to draft and negotiate a one
of the kind of things people expect every lawyer to behundred million dollar outsourcing transaction. They
able to do.... I think law schools can do a decent job ofwould, however, like to be able to draft a
preparing students for litigation - which would be greatstraightforward confidentiality agreement, handle simple
if any actually got to try cases."sales deals, and understand basic negotiation
Personally, I wouldn't have any objection to Denistechniques. Better yet, all of these practice skills can be
Campbell's point above if students were given aeasily taught along with cutting edge legal scholarship
choice as to which educational model they preferred.focusing on theory. As noted in the previous post here:
Sadly, the American Bar Association ("ABA") only"What I find most interesting about this yawning divide
accredits law schools that follow the model ofbetween academia and practice, is that, for the life of
teaching one to "think like a lawyer," while whollyme, I can't understand why this needs to be the case.
rejecting other schools, such as online educators, thatIf you are a professor focused on the empirical legal
offer a different approach.studies movement, why can't you teach actual
In the United States, if the ABA and state barpractice skills in the context of your research? If you
associations did not create an artificially biasedwrite about discourse analysis, why can't you analyze
marketplace in favor of one educational model over alla contract negotiation? If you are an economics and
others by only accrediting "think like a lawyer" lawthe law scholar, why can't you instruct students on the
schools, and the Denis Campbell Law School, foreconomic administration of law firms and explore the
instance, could openly compete with the Matthewnature of perverse incentives?"
Homann School of Law, then it would be up toI'm surprised to find the issue so controversial. Perhaps
advocates of the "think like a lawyer" approach tothere is tremendous concern about change, particularly
prove that students want that method of teaching... orso for law professors with little to no practice
they would go under. Right now, students are forcedexperience. I remember my torts class, the very first
by the ABA accreditation process and the state barclass I had in law school. Our professor had a law
associations to only attend law schools that, for thedegree and doctoral degree in philosophy, and was
most part, only teach to "think like a lawyer" instead ofquite fascinating to talk to about postmodernism and
how to actually perform like one. If accreditationlegal philosophy. I felt quite enriched to have a
weren't so difficult (e.g., requiring millions to be spent onprofessor injecting these kinds of theories into tort law,
a paper based library when most lawyers do 99% ofand in no way would want to excise that theoretical
their research electronically), you would see a wideapproach. At the same time, my fellow students were
variety of law schools popping up, and, out of thatcontinually frustrated that he could not explain how a
competition, I think you would find the most prestigiouscase could be initiated and would play out. Upon
and popular schools to be ones that marry theoreticalhearing these concerns, the professor reacted with
teaching with the practice arena.equal frustration, stating that such questions were not
Additionally, to argue that because an MBA does notparticularly important in his mind.
prepare you immediately to be the chief executiveThere has to be a better approach, a third way, and
officer of a large corporation, law schools should notthe marriage of theory and practice offers that path.
teach practice skills, is not an effective defense of theUltimately, it need not be a zero sum game: we can
current state of legal education. Instead, it might behave both.
better to ask: does an MBA immediately allow you to