After leading an assault on civil liberties and privacy in his Administration (as well as blocking efforts to prosecute Bush officials for torture), President Barack Obama may just be the last person who should be giving advice on training lawyers. Yet, Obama told lawyers last Friday that he would like to see law school cut by one-third to reduce time studying legal principles and history. Of course, given the number of constitutional provisions that Obama has effectively negated, it may take less time to study the remaining laws after the Obama years. Before law schools follow his lead to a fast-food version of legal education, we need to ask what we want in our lawyers. The President would reduce legal training to a program slightly longer than current paralegal schools.
Obama told an audience at Binghamton University in New York : “This is probably controversial to say, but what the heck, I’m in my second term so I can say it. I believe, for example, that law schools would probably be wise to think about being two years instead of three years—because by the third year—in the first two years young people are learning in the classroom,” Obama said. “The third year they’d be better off clerking or practicing in a firm, even if they weren’t getting paid that much. But that step alone would reduce the cost for the student.”
Now, I have little doubt that an attorney carrying out the Obama policies could get by with even a year of law school. Indeed, you only have to read Article II according to Obama to understand that the president can basically do whatever he wants, including killing any citizens he deems to be a threat.
I have long been a critic of the push for a two-year law school curriculum. It is being proposed as a way to maintain revenue and application levels for law schools. However, it minimizes what is (in my view) necessary to train a fully informed professional in this field. I am highly critical of current programs that omit legal history and legal theory in the training of lawyers. Instead, many schools simply train lawyers like glorified accountants; people who know how to file actions but have little understanding of philosophy and purpose of the law. If the President gets his way, law schools would simply train to the bar exam like a trade school. Offering such courses as electives is nothing more than pretense. With only two years, students will barely have time to take basic courses of torts, criminal law, contracts, civil procedures, constitutional law, and other basic courses. These basic courses extend into the second year where students often take just one or two electives. The just of the time goes to evidence, administrative law, environmental law and the other fundamental areas of study. If you want to add a meaningful clinical experience (which most law schools are seeking to offer) that would cut down your academic courses even further or you would have to forego clinical courses.
Some argue that most lawyers do not use legal theory in their careers. However, this ignores that such training make for lawyers who understand not just the expression but purpose and history of the law. At issue is what type of lawyers we want in our society. The two year proposal represents a fundamental change — reducing lawyers to the lowest common denominator of education. The problem is that this factory approach to education will represent a short term windfall for schools and unleash a race to the bottom. In the end, all legal education will be cheapened and we will flood the country with even more minimally trained lawyers.
For the President to add his voice to this movement is a disgrace. It appears that Obama is not satisfied with the harm done to constitutional law and now advocates the reduction of legal training. His advocacy will have an effect on some bar members and presents a serious danger to legal education in this country. We are facing one of the greatest challenges to our profession in a century. We will either remain committed to the training of a fully educated lawyer or turn toward the type of trade school that the President seems to invite. Whatever we do, this is a conversation that should be confined to those who respect the law, not violate it. That would exclude our president from the conversation.
Source: Legal Times
jurisdebtor:
wont those same people end up as judges? Why dont you just let parallegals handle cases under a lawyer as you are making that case or so it seems.
As John Grisham says a “paralawyer.”
Bron, Come on now, Shaq has a degree from the U. of Phoenix.
This is truly specious argument borne from the ivory towers of academia. While I agree with Turley’s criticisms of the Obama and Bush Administrations, I disagree with this notion that such violations of the Constitution are the result of inadequate legal training, or that a reduction in classroom time would cause further damage to Constitutional discourse in this country.
I am not sure about Mr. Turley’s experience, but my first year was spent tethered to a desk reading up on the very subjects he proposes students will not have little time to study (Con Law, Civ Pro, Torts, Contracts, Property, etc. are typically standard first year courses required for all first year students to take). Moreover, by my third year I was largely out of the classroom, working in a legal clinic, interning at a separate entity, and largely trying to gain hands on experience. Why? Because law is not practiced in the classroom.
This notion that attorneys are suppose to ask the why, rather than know the how, of the law is fine for a small segment of the legal practice. Most attorneys work in general litigation working with clients, and when representing clients, pro forma trumps philosophical discourse–attorneys are not the referees, but rather zealous advocates for their clients. That discourse is left to those far higher up the legal ladder, or for those in academia; such as Turley, Yoo, Hennessey, Dershowitz, etc.
But many (most) law students will not be in these positions where Constitutional matters are of utmost importance.
Lastly, suggesting that the Constitution is violated because some persons did not develop an adequate understanding of Con Law is akin to saying that people who break the law did not have an adequate understanding of the law; I am well aware the speed limit is 65 when I am driving 73.
If you read it and don’t understand it…. Does that make you presidential material….
If you think about it and do research, the BAR is the problem behind most of America’s downfall. Constitutional Law is easier, less complicated, understandable, and you do not have to hire an attorney to explain it. Corporation law is what is hurting the people, too much schooling for rules, regulations, and codes on how to put the screws to your opponent.
nick:
I wouldnt hire anyone with a degree from University of Phoenix, it is a degree mill. I see a commercial where a chief of police has a degree in law enforcement from there, a correlation between bad police and UP?
Bruce:
the gripe is with the shop, I understand that. all I am saying is dont trust a “blue ribbon” insurance company prefered shop to fix your car honestly.
The University of Phoenix and Globe University just got ideas for law schools.
Bron; did the auto body shop repair the car to its previous condition? If not your gripe is with the shop
PSA. apologies.
I just got screwed by an insurance company [yeah, yeah, I know] so a word to the wise. When you have an accident do not trust the “Blue Ribbon” repair shop to give you an accurate accounting of what needs to be done.
The car should have been totaled and wasnt. Had it been totaled the repair shop would not have made any money. Since it was a “Blue Ribbon” shop, no adjuster needed to look at the car.
Any good lawyers [from 3 year schools] in North Carolina who wants to sue an auto dealership?
Reblogged this on Brittius.com.
Why stop there,
just put Law School on the web & with a credit card, I’ll send you your Diploma as an PDF attachment on your E-mail.
No muss, no fuss. We don’t need no stinking Academics.
Actually, the more this story ferments inside my head, it’s actually starting to make me angry. The arrogance of “you don’t need to know the how or why behind the law, just do what your Imperial President tells you and be a good drone” is simply staggering. Why not just use machines for the job and quit the pretense that this is a country under the rule of law and admit it’s a fascist police state under the rule by law? It’ll be much easier without people who know the difference between the rule of law and the rule by law.
arent there too many crappy lawyers already?
What OS said.
And a heavy dose of incredulous.
Perhaps Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder need to go back to law school for two or three more years. From what we have seen from them so far, whatever was taught in class when they were there did not “take.”
Medical school on deck, Engineering in the hole. This just shows how much our president cares about student loans. He feels your pain..wait that was the first black prez.
Does this go into the “dumbing down” column?
To get to Obama’s level of abrogation of the rule of law, I would think his three years of opposition research would only have been barely adequate.