We had a similar first-year course 20 years ago at W&L called "Introduction to Lawyer's Role" that did many of the things that Brett described. It lasted about 6 years, not because it was not a great course--it was, though probably ahead of its time then-- but because while the first cadre of teachers thought it was splendid and engaged in exhilirating collaboration, the second-round(reinforcements were necessary because it is intense, at least as we did it)were less eager and less collaborative. So, as a famous poet once said, "the center did not hold" and the course reflected what the particular prof wanted it to be. So, I wish you well, Brett--I am a U of M alum--but my own view is that such a course works better in the third-year--more to be said later on our own fundamental reforms in the third-year-- unless you have strong faculty willingness to collaboate and hold the center. I wish you well.Lyman Johnson

I agree with Lyman that such a course sounds like it might work better in the third year. I suppose the key word in your description of the course is "introduce."

First year students are "introduced" to quite a bit, most notably the essential "language" of law that allows them to grasp the various subjects they will grapple with for the next two years and beyond. I might suggest that a first year course regarding such topics as lawyer-client (agency/fiduciary) relationships, PR, and "transactional" work could very easily descend into an abyss of confusion for any first year student.

Of course, if you can maintain the course at a truly introductory level, it may be quite valuable.

For what little bit my "2 cents" are worth...

Best of luck with the program.

Why doesn't some enterprising law school offer a split curriculum -- one course of study for grownups (defined as anyone who has had a real nonlaw job for a few years), and another for the kids who don't know what else to do with that English Lit BA.

Prof. McDonnell's "Work of the Lawyer" course would fit well with the first category. Otherwise, I'd agree it's better offered as a 3L course.

I'm guessing that students will be quite split on this class. For some, it will be their favorite class in the first year. They will wonder why more of law school isn't like the class. Others will hate it, and wonder why a top tier school is forcing such a practical class on them. A third group will have weaker and/or more mixed feelings. The crucial question: what will be the relative proportions of these three groups? On that, I don't have a good guess.

Lyman, I am interested in hearing more about what you are doing in the third year. We are starting to look at the third year as well, developing what we are calling "capstone" courses. More on that in a later post. The hope is that those capstone courses will be able to build upon the base we establish in the first year course.

Jake,

I have to take issue with your post. "Grownups"? "Real nonlaw job"? Care to define that? I've known quite a few accomplished blue collar workers who wouldn't have a clue what "fiduciary" means. Some of them are tremendous leaders, and in many ways far more "grownup" than some associates and partners I've met. And I wouldn't dream of classifying a journeyman career in a union as an electrical worker, carpenter, etc - not to mention many many other non union positions or even what we would refer to as "unskilled" positions - as not being "real" "nonlaw jobs."