Law schools: necessary reinvention

A recent article published in the BLOG "AbovetheLaw" and written by Jeff Bennion, Of Counsel of Estey & Bomberger LLP, analyses the interaction between a law student who needs to complete his studies with hours of pro bono practice and the need for a traditional legal study, which involves a critical observation of law education.

In the past, we have already written about our vision of the lawyer of the future and about the tools and competences to be given to a student of law. However, I believe that the article in question is a good complement to that vision.

The analysis contained in this article is based on an example related to the following situation: if a student calls a lawyer's study saying: "I need to supplement my legal education with 50 extra hours, can I work on one of his files for a week?" It will take the legal firm 15 hours to monitor it and probably 10 hours more to redo a project that would only take 10 hours to do so in a first instance without that student intervening, unless the task is to remove the square brackets from the documents to scan, which, without a doubt, does not really mean to promote that student's education. So, for a lawyer study, the student's presence does not imply any benefit in the efficiency of the process. The question is, therefore, whether working hours effectively complement the education of law students. However, despite how valid this question may be, it is probably not the most correct, but what we should actually ask ourselves is: how is it possible for someone who pays for a career and invests several years of study in it, to opt for, for example, running 6 months of free practice to learn the basics and validate the learned in theory?

It is no secret that law school does not prepare to face the real world. In fact, many lawyers boast that their curriculum is very theoretical, academic and philosophical and do not consider everyday matters. Imagine doctors graduating only with a philosophical understanding of hypothetical situations when it would be appropriate to prescribe antibiotics. This is clearly not the case; medical students practice with bodies and perform real tasks with their own hands. This should also be the case with education in law schools.

On the other hand, the lack of practical education makes it difficult for newly graduated lawyers to find attractive, challenging and motivating jobs. It also forces them to require years of training on the job before being efficient.

Today, the mission of law schools is to become a more intelligent and analytical person and, once you are smart enough, you can use Lexis nexis or Westlaw. But wouldn't it be better if instead of teaching just one branch of what is needed to know, law schools would teach everything that is needed to know? Or at least the foundations of what is required to know.

Below are some suggestions that we rescued from the author and that we have taken the liberty to complement in relation to practical subjects that lawyers should know before graduating:

• How to charge for your time, make drafts and use invoice software.
• How to write an email so it doesn't look like you're exposing a motion.
• How to write a memorandum.
• How to prepare a defense.
• How to deliver persuasive oral arguments and negotiate.
• How to be a successful lawyer and good person at once.
• How to incorporate technology in making work more efficient.
• How to understand what a process, a business model, a strategy is.
• How to lead a team and interact with the pairs.
• How to assess risks, measure and control them.

Andrés Jara B.

CEO Alster Legal

ajara @ 18.209.34.37