Forums

Interesting list, AG, but I've got to quibble with at least a couple:

There is no such thing as a non-trick question.

Bah! People get themselves into trouble in law school because they always think the easy, logical answer is too easy or too logical. Profs generally don't have the time or the inclination to be crafting cleverly tricky exam or lecture questions. They're too busy writing grant applications and trying to find obscure Swedish trial court opinions for their upcoming article. The only trick questions I saw in law school were the ones that tricked me by not being trick questions.

The Socratic Method is not an enterprise in group learning. . . Don't ever be embarassed not to know the answer, because wrong answers slow the Socratic learning process down to a pace that can actually be withstood by its pupils and that actually fits the professor's secret reading schedule for the semester.

I agree that the Socratic Method is not particularly practical in 60-100 person lectures. Socrates never had more than a dozen or so pupils, if my Classics professor is to be believed. That being said, as an intellectual tool, it's vastly superior to the lecture method because it forces the student to learn the process of deriving a result, rather than merely memorizing the result. Knowing that Mrs. Palsgraf was not owed a duty is one thing, but being able to understand how the result in that case can be applied to your client's food poisoning case is another thing.

But in terms of a practical rule, you're spot on with the "don't be embarassed to not know the answer." The whole assumption of the Socratic Method is that you won't usually know the answer when the question is first presented. Nor should one be embarassed to reason-- oftentimes flawedly-- out loud. That's the whole point of the exercise.

The most important class you will take is Legal Writing & Research, or whatever your school calls it. Corollary: Sadly and contrary to all reason, moot court is a ridiculous waste of time, but law review is not.

Research & Writing may nominally be the most important class, but ironically, in most schools, it's given the least emphasis by the school and taught by the least competent instructors. When the FFH School of Law manages to get accredited, the first and second years will be typical of the current law school experience, while third year will basically be a junior lawyer trade school. Students will take an hour a day of research and two hours a day of reasoning and writing, learning how to write for various audiences, how to structure an argument, and how to develop a case strategy that consists of more than "But my adversary is bad!"

Your other observation is crap. Law review is thoroughly useless. 90% of what I edited was pseudo-intellectual gibberish postulated by blowhards. At best, it taught me that being a law professor was easily the most horrible job on Earth. On the other hand, a well-implemented moot court program (which, admittedly, is not too common) can be a good sandbox for junior litigators. Of course, instead of pointless appellate arguments, moot courts should consist of suppression hearings, preliminary injunction hearings, and the like-- shit that people will actually do when they find themselves in courtooms.

There really is a difference between de novo review and the abuse of discretion review. However, the real-world application of this difference is known only to appellate justices. Corollary: Your law professor is not an appellate justice.

Again, partial credit. The professor won't know the difference. But goddamit, if you walk into a trial court without an understanding of how the appeals court is going to review what happens, you're committing malpractice. Knowing when the ruling you're arguing for or against is going to be reviewed for abuse of discretion requires you to handle it much, much differently than one which is going to be reveiewed de novo. (If nothing else, how can you effectively advise your client if you don't know how well your hard-fought trial ruling will stand up to appeal?) Again, that's why law school should be less focused upon theory and more focused on teaching practical skills and knowledge.

As for my substitute rules for those of yours I disagree with, how about these:

1. No persuasive argument contains the words "fair" or "unfair." Persauasive arguments usually contain the words "logical" or "illogical."

2. People who don't use pinpoint cites probably didn't read the case.

3. If you can't be a genius, be prepared. If you can't be prepared, be contrite. If you can't be contrite, go to medical school.

4. From Day 1 of first year, constantly ask yourself whether you would be willing to have each of your classmates represent you if you were accused of a crime five years from now. If, by graduation, you're not down to only about a half-dozen people you'd call in that situation, you're not sufficiently discriminating and you're going to spend many painful years with bad clients, bad cases, and bad arguments.