Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
euphronius
Feb 18, 2009

Signature blocks on legal briefs / pleadings / motions also

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

Ani posted:

The UK does this right. Law is a 3 year undergrad degree, or a 1 year course you can do after you have an undergrad in anything else. Then you have to do two years of supervised training (where you get paid a reasonable wage) before being qualified.

It's weird to say now, but I was an adjunct professor for a state law school for 2 years (thought I was going to be an academic out of law school, turns out they're only interested in hiring ppl with law firm exp) and I can unequivocally say that my courses could have been taught as an junior or senior level class in college. The amount of reading is comparable to being an english major, the researching methods aren't too far from what you would have to learn in any high tier humanities course. It's just a matter of learning the lingo and methods (again, research).

Law school's methodology is overrated. It's real use is to limit and control the number of attorneys, and dice the student population into ranks for easy perusal by law firms.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

Shageletic posted:

It's weird to say now, but I was an adjunct professor for a state law school for 2 years (thought I was going to be an academic out of law school, turns out they're only interested in hiring ppl with law firm exp) and I can unequivocally say that my courses could have been taught as an junior or senior level class in college. The amount of reading is comparable to being an english major, the researching methods aren't too far from what you would have to learn in any high tier humanities course. It's just a matter of learning the lingo and methods (again, research).

Law school's methodology is overrated. It's real use is to limit and control the number of attorneys, and dice the student population into ranks for easy perusal by law firms.

lol at the idea law schools limit and control the number of attorneys

Tokelau All Star
Feb 23, 2008

THE TAXES! THE FINGER THING MEANS THE TAXES!

I write Esq. after opposing counsel's name on a COS. It was there on the first COS I cut and paste from and has stayed.

Pook Good Mook
Aug 6, 2013


ENFORCE THE UNITED STATES DRESS CODE AT ALL COSTS!

This message paid for by the Men's Wearhouse& Jos A Bank Lobbying Group

Shageletic posted:

It's weird to say now, but I was an adjunct professor for a state law school for 2 years (thought I was going to be an academic out of law school, turns out they're only interested in hiring ppl with law firm exp) and I can unequivocally say that my courses could have been taught as an junior or senior level class in college. The amount of reading is comparable to being an english major, the researching methods aren't too far from what you would have to learn in any high tier humanities course. It's just a matter of learning the lingo and methods (again, research).

Law school's methodology is overrated. It's real use is to limit and control the number of attorneys, and dice the student population into ranks for easy perusal by law firms.

The lack of focus on practical skills (or even a small business class on how to run a firm) is crippling the entire field. The gatekeepers are academics who naval gaze and count success in their tenures and publishing pointless poo poo that no one reads in one of 500 industry journals published by loving students. There is zero reason that law school needs to be the way it is. I'm not convinced it should be an undergrad program, but I am certain that they way it's structured is an active detriment.

euphronius
Feb 18, 2009

It’s important to know who the attorneys are. People don’t seem to like starting professional conversations with me asking them “are you an attorney ?”

euphronius
Feb 18, 2009

Law schools teach general legal writing, trial advocacy, and sometimes light appellate work. What else could they teach.

Pook Good Mook
Aug 6, 2013


ENFORCE THE UNITED STATES DRESS CODE AT ALL COSTS!

This message paid for by the Men's Wearhouse& Jos A Bank Lobbying Group

euphronius posted:

Law schools teach general legal writing, trial advocacy, and sometimes light appellate work. What else could they teach.

The law? Practical poo poo instead of a weird adversarial conversations about "interesting" doctrines that 95% of lawyers they're training will never engage with ever again?

The style of teaching used in law schools is more akin to PhD programs than an actual attempt to prepare you for the profession.

euphronius
Feb 18, 2009

I mean they obviously teach the law. Lol

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

evilweasel posted:

lol at the idea law schools limit and control the number of attorneys

I wouldn't say law schools per se but maybe the ABA? It's not nearly as powerful an actor as the AMA but it feels like there's a conscious choice on how law schools and lawyers are minted. Not sure about the specifics tho.

Arcturas
Mar 30, 2011

Pook Good Mook posted:

The law? Practical poo poo instead of a weird adversarial conversations about "interesting" doctrines that 95% of lawyers they're training will never engage with ever again?

The style of teaching used in law schools is more akin to PhD programs than an actual attempt to prepare you for the profession.

The idea that law school should just be a three-year barbri course makes me want to bleed out of my eyes.

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

Pook Good Mook posted:

The lack of focus on practical skills (or even a small business class on how to run a firm) is crippling the entire field. The gatekeepers are academics who naval gaze and count success in their tenures and publishing pointless poo poo that no one reads in one of 500 industry journals published by loving students. There is zero reason that law school needs to be the way it is. I'm not convinced it should be an undergrad program, but I am certain that they way it's structured is an active detriment.

Totally agree.

euphronius
Feb 18, 2009

It could def be 2 years.

But then every class would almost have to be bar related

Muir
Sep 27, 2005

that's Doctor Brain to you

euphronius posted:

It could def be 2 years.

But then every class would almost have to be bar related

That's fine. Then maybe we can see people who want to go into specialties do LLMs, like is already more common in tax law, and those who don't can go straight into practice and learning on the job.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

euphronius posted:

Law schools teach general legal writing, trial advocacy, and sometimes light appellate work. What else could they teach.

i think mine taught me one of those three

there was, of course, the contract law, real estate law, rules of civil procedure, and the rules of evidence, and i remember none of the last three

it's not great for remembering the rules of evidence when you do nothing but bench trials. "judge! you're not allowed to look at this! look closely at it to decide you can't look at this!"

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

Shageletic posted:

I wouldn't say law schools per se but maybe the ABA? It's not nearly as powerful an actor as the AMA but it feels like there's a conscious choice on how law schools and lawyers are minted. Not sure about the specifics tho.

the ABA has absolutely no power to limit the number of law schools or lawyers; law schools are amazingly profitable because you need a professor and a lecture hall. that's why law schools that have essentially no chance of landing you a job exist, because they're quite profitable.

there was a time the ABA limited it much in the same way the AMA does, but they lost a court case and can't do that anymore. this is why "don't go to law school" was such a big thing for a while: people did not realize that a law degree is not like a medical degree where the worst person who got one is still a prestigious doctor. instead, you're a prestigious barista.

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

evilweasel posted:

the ABA has absolutely no power to limit the number of law schools or lawyers; law schools are amazingly profitable because you need a professor and a lecture hall. that's why law schools that have essentially no chance of landing you a job exist, because they're quite profitable.

there was a time the ABA limited it much in the same way the AMA does, but they lost a court case and can't do that anymore.

oh cool, happen to know the case?

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

Shageletic posted:

oh cool, happen to know the case?

Here's a DOJ page with all of the relevant documents - complaint, consent order, followup, etc: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-v-american-bar-association

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

Thx!

Ani
Jun 15, 2001
illum non populi fasces, non purpura regum / flexit et infidos agitans discordia fratres

Shageletic posted:

It's weird to say now, but I was an adjunct professor for a state law school for 2 years (thought I was going to be an academic out of law school, turns out they're only interested in hiring ppl with law firm exp) and I can unequivocally say that my courses could have been taught as an junior or senior level class in college. The amount of reading is comparable to being an english major, the researching methods aren't too far from what you would have to learn in any high tier humanities course. It's just a matter of learning the lingo and methods (again, research).

Law school's methodology is overrated. It's real use is to limit and control the number of attorneys, and dice the student population into ranks for easy perusal by law firms.

I think law school teaches nothing at all of value. Most reasonable undergraduates could take the bar solely based on a Barbri course, and they could also start practicing at a law firm based on just that. The extra three years add nothing.

euphronius
Feb 18, 2009

The bar, well many bars, also have a legal writing segment

There is also legal ethics. Which I guess could be a class or two.

Muir
Sep 27, 2005

that's Doctor Brain to you

Ani posted:

I think law school teaches nothing at all of value. Most reasonable undergraduates could take the bar solely based on a Barbri course, and they could also start practicing at a law firm based on just that. The extra three years add nothing.

I have spoken to several partners at various Am Law 50 firms and they have all gone out of their way to say they think I missed out on exactly zero knowledge by not going to law school (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Requirements/Education/Legal-Education/Law-Office-or-Judges-Chamber)

EwokEntourage
Jun 10, 2008

BREYER: Actually, Antonin, you got it backwards. See, a power bottom is actually generating all the dissents by doing most of the work.

SCALIA: Stephen, I've heard that speed has something to do with it.

BREYER: Speed has everything to do with it.

Pook Good Mook posted:

The lack of focus on practical skills (or even a small business class on how to run a firm) is crippling the entire field. The gatekeepers are academics who naval gaze and count success in their tenures and publishing pointless poo poo that no one reads in one of 500 industry journals published by loving students. There is zero reason that law school needs to be the way it is. I'm not convinced it should be an undergrad program, but I am certain that they way it's structured is an active detriment.

they offered both a how to run a law firm class and a "math for lawyers" class at my law school and I was repeatedly advised not to take either because they were useless

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

euphronius posted:

The bar, well many bars, also have a legal writing segment

There is also legal ethics. Which I guess could be a class or two.

legal ethics should be taught as god intended, a mandatory course to reinstate your license after a DUI

Hieronymous Alloy
Jan 30, 2009


Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!




Morbid Hound

Ani posted:

I think law school teaches nothing at all of value. Most reasonable undergraduates could take the bar solely based on a Barbri course, and they could also start practicing at a law firm based on just that. The extra three years add nothing.

The purpose of law school requirements isn't to teach you law

The purpose of law school requirements is to make sure only people who can afford law school get to be lawyers

The existence of the student loan model has essentially removed this purpose, but nevertheless, here we are. It's like learning ballroom dancing: you have to do it as a kid because your parents make you, even though they themselves can't remember the steps and can't imagine a situation where you would need to know the steps either.

homullus
Mar 27, 2009

Ani posted:

I think law school teaches nothing at all of value. Most reasonable undergraduates could take the bar solely based on a Barbri course, and they could also start practicing at a law firm based on just that. The extra three years add nothing.

Law school teaches some technical writing and rudimentary legal research, but otherwise, yes, I agree it is a long-form prep course.

The new bar exam is going to test negotiation, client management, and investigation. Somehow. There may be video questions.

Nice piece of fish
Jan 29, 2008

Ultra Carp
Law school teaches you legal philosophy, the most common areas of law, the three kinds of legal and legal-academic writing, civil and criminal procedure, international law, human rights law and the meaning of friendship. There's also mandatory training and work prep, internships and moot court. But most importantly and as a core of each of the five years it teaches you legal methodology after the norwegian-scandinavian model of law.

Which is heavily criticized as merely aping after the justifications presented by the supreme court and is basically a slavish adherence to legislative preambles combined with a positivistic reliance on strict interpretation of wording.

But never mind. The point is, you suffer through a minimum of seven years of writing your poo poo opinions and getting dunked on by attorneys who know what they are doing possibly before you can call yourself one (you are wrong, you suck baby jurist).

If you're gonna gatekeep for gently caress's sake do a better job of it.

Vox Nihili
May 28, 2008

I will never write Esquire on anything

poo poo

The Dagda
Nov 22, 2005

I am a big nerd and would have loved intellectually serious coursework on legal philosophy, sociology of law, legal history. Law school in the US is not that, obviously.

I also loved the clinics where I was essentially an intern and got to do hands on casework—I only learned how to be a lawyer from those clinics and from internships outside of school.

The doctrinal classes taught in lecture format using the Socratic method are the absolute least useful part of the whole thing. Should be scrapped entirely for yes, basically barbri, if they’re going to keep that stuff at all.

They should either go all the way and make it like a PhD program, just for kicks, or make it a like a trade school and journeyman apprenticeship program. As it is, it’s the worst of all worlds.

Kalman
Jan 17, 2010

The Dagda posted:

I am a big nerd and would have loved intellectually serious coursework on legal philosophy, sociology of law, legal history. Law school in the US is not that, obviously.

It can be if you go to the right place/pick the right classes.

Kalman
Jan 17, 2010

E: awful double posted.

joat mon
Oct 15, 2009

I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.
Maybe we could transition to an analogue of the solicitor/ barrister system. A "show me how to fill out these forms" votech track and a "grounding in law" humanities track

Jean-Paul Shartre
Jan 16, 2015

this sentence no verb


The Dagda posted:

I am a big nerd and would have loved intellectually serious coursework on legal philosophy, sociology of law, legal history. Law school in the US is not that, obviously.

I also loved the clinics where I was essentially an intern and got to do hands on casework—I only learned how to be a lawyer from those clinics and from internships outside of school.

The doctrinal classes taught in lecture format using the Socratic method are the absolute least useful part of the whole thing. Should be scrapped entirely for yes, basically barbri, if they’re going to keep that stuff at all.

They should either go all the way and make it like a PhD program, just for kicks, or make it a like a trade school and journeyman apprenticeship program. As it is, it’s the worst of all worlds.

There's only Yale and CUNY law now, nothing in between.

But the biggest, easiest change would be to allow law to be a bachelor's degree, like everywhere else in the world. Law can be a social science department, not its own school.

trevorreznik
Apr 22, 2023
But if it was a bachelor's degree all the lawyers would lose out on a few years of napping/partying their way through political science courses for an easy degree!


My wife is going back to school for a masters in teaching and the craziest thing to me is regulations that make her take/test out of a bunch of extra undergrad classes in addition to all the masters coursework. Imagine if you went to law school and they told you actually, you also need to pick up some math, history etc that you missed (defined in a very silly way where business math doesn't count as math) when getting your bachelor's.

EwokEntourage
Jun 10, 2008

BREYER: Actually, Antonin, you got it backwards. See, a power bottom is actually generating all the dissents by doing most of the work.

SCALIA: Stephen, I've heard that speed has something to do with it.

BREYER: Speed has everything to do with it.
might stop the flow of IP lawyers that are loving up the profession

Muir
Sep 27, 2005

that's Doctor Brain to you

EwokEntourage posted:

might stop the flow of IP lawyers that are loving up the profession

How are IP lawyers loving up the profession?

Pook Good Mook
Aug 6, 2013


ENFORCE THE UNITED STATES DRESS CODE AT ALL COSTS!

This message paid for by the Men's Wearhouse& Jos A Bank Lobbying Group

Muir posted:

How are IP lawyers loving up the profession?

They're uncool nerds that no one wants to sit with at lunch. They're bringing the rest of us cool people down with them.

Toona the Cat
Jun 9, 2004

The Greatest
One of my best friends is an IP lawyer with a PhD in neuroscience. He makes bank working for a pharma company.

EwokEntourage
Jun 10, 2008

BREYER: Actually, Antonin, you got it backwards. See, a power bottom is actually generating all the dissents by doing most of the work.

SCALIA: Stephen, I've heard that speed has something to do with it.

BREYER: Speed has everything to do with it.
well, in addition to pointing out helping pharma companies (thanks toona, for always being connected to someone doing dirt), they also encourage 20 billion dollar litigation over whether a phone has the same rounder corners as another phone (apparently a patentable issue) and rotate around loving up federal courts.

frankly, them and bankruptcy attorneys doing that texas two step bullshit give the rest of a bad name. i'm just trying to crush pro se plaintiffs in consumer litigation like my profession was intended to do, gently caress off with this patent bar bs

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Hieronymous Alloy
Jan 30, 2009


Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!




Morbid Hound

Muir posted:

How are IP lawyers loving up the profession?

Mostly by making all that money instead of me making it

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply