Also, Mr. Smith, you state that "clinical instruction is much more expensive than classroom instruction" without even the smallest iota of support.

I would imagine many large (and small) firms would gladly take aspiring lawyers at free or reduced cost. Thus, the only "cost" associated with these programs would then be the absorbitant tuition most schools charge these days.

I personally have no problem with divorcing law professors from the students after year one. We need law professors teaching skills based technique like we need Daniel Hale Williams' biographer performing open heart surgery.

Justin,

You argue for a market solution, but don't law schools operate in a market? Perhaps you could explain how this market is producing such (seemingly) poor results. In my view, the market for law students has generated substantial innovations in legal education over the past several decades, including the propogation of clinics, externships, and specialty certificates. You are obviously dissatisfied with your legal education, but that doesn't mean the market is broken.

As for clinical instruction being more expensive than traditional classroom instruction, that is not an assertion that requires proof. It is a well-established fact.

You seem to be arguing for an apprenticeship model that would avoid the need for law school altogether. You would have felt at home in the early 1800s, but I don't see much point in talking about the model today.

Gordon,

Law Schools do operate in a market, but that market is skewed by two important factors (at least from my perspective), and I believe those factors make this discussion infinitely more difficult.

Those factors are: 1.) I seriously duobt that most law students, even by the end of their third year, really have any clue what areas of the law they will be practicing in 3-5 years from now and beyond; and 2.) Current school and bar exam models purposely prepare students to be generalists.

I can't say that I have an answer for this, but I can see how it creates a problem.

Most students (and the current learning, and bar exam models force this to some degree) spend most of their 2L and 3L years getting a taste of multiple legal subjects, without ever getting very deep into either the substantive or practical aspects of most or all of the subjects they study.

The end result is that we have a bevy of students entering the legal field with 3 years gone, large student loan debts, and feeling rather unprepared. Neither clinical experience, nor a greater focus on apprenticeship, nor an increase in substantive coursework appears a realistic anser to this question because, as you so aptly expressed, it all feels like a zero sum game. That is so because the discussion attempts to encompass far too much for a group of students that largely has no idea what they will be practicing in the future.

Maybe I'm out in "left field" here, but it seems to me that the problem is grounded in the fact that the bar expects attorneys to be generalists, and therefore law schools are forced into a model of preparing their students largely as though they will be generalists - ie: law schools are forced to prepare students for a bar exam instead of honestly preparing them to practice in their chosen field.

I suppose what I'm really talking about here (and it seems like I've heard this somewhere before), but perhaps we need a fundamental change in the way we view the practice of law in the U.S. For instance, I say, why couldn't an attorney be licensed only as an estate planning attorney, only as a litigator, only as a transactional attorney, or only for certain types of transactions (like only for securities work)?

While overlap would be inevitable, such an approach would allow a law school to better model curriculum for students who knew what are they wanted to practice in. The first year could remain essentially as is, and the second year could be tailored, substantively and practically for the specific license the student wishes to obtain, and to heck with the third year (though perhaps some licenses would require a third year). Any practicing attorneys wishing to become licensed in other areas would be free to take the necessary classes (whether through their local bar or a law school), and then take the requisite test for that license. Perhaps, using the overlap would allow certain students to prepare for multiple licensing exams during that second year.

Such a model would diffuse the whole "zero-sum game" problem because the unnecessary parts of each individual student's coursework options would be quickly identified and discarded, at no real loss to anybody.

The only kicker here would be that students would have to have a much better idea up front of what they want to practice (that and it would rock the foundation of the legal establishment), but I think neither is a bad thing. Requiring students to make such choices would force new approaches to law school recruiting and applying altogether, and the market would step in to provide options for prospective and 1L students to better explore and pinpoint their legal interests. Overall costs of law school would decrease, and graduating students would be better prepared to "hit the ground running" in their specialized fields, with the option to expand their practice at a later date, after having gained substantial practical experience.

Just my 3 cents...

As a former big firm partner and start up executive now teaching law school, I think some obvious points are being given short shrift.

First, I don't think law schools are all that out of touch with the world of practice. Both the school I attended and the school at which I'm a visiting assistant professor have plenty of faculty with real world experience, some as big firm partners and some as high level government and NGO attorneys (and, yes, that's real law). Even those who haven't practiced more than a year or two are often very interested in the real world of practice. Beyond that, the clinical offerings available today are orders of magnitude beyond what was available in my day. Aside from what's taught on campus, these include internship and externship programs with real lawyers run by the law schools. While there may be professors and even schools that view themselves as above actual practice, I suspect that's way less true than is being portrayed. With upper level electives, clinical offerings, externship and interships, students with a defined professional interest can get much more hands on experience than was available back when I was in school.

Second, in any dysfunctional relationship, both sides to the relationship generally bear some of the blame. To the extent practicing lawyers are not interested in some of the things law professors are doing, the sensible rebuttal may be that in an ideal world where lawyers are still professionals they would be interested. Part of being a lawyer, after all, ought to include thinking not just about how to win or bill a client, but about the role of the legal system in our society. There is some fascinating and fundamental work being done, and those whose interests in the legal profession extend beyond revenue generation might find it interesting to look through.

The law profession is a monopoly scam. There was a time that lawyers did not attend school at all but simply studied on their own. Law school now is desighned to keep the number of lawyers down so that only the children of the elite or those willing to incur mountains of student loan debt can become lawyers. There is no reason for law school to be over a year long.