The Case for Reducing Law School to Two Years with Supervised Internships
Should law school be reduced from a standard three-year program to just two years, with the third year reserved for supervised internships?
While some argue that reducing the duration of law school would exacerbate the oversupply of lawyers, others believe in extending the learning period to enhance legal education. This article explores the benefits and drawbacks of shortening law school, along with the potential solutions of incorporating supervised internships and raising admission standards.
A Two-Year Program with Internships
The proposal to reduce law school to two years is supported by the argument that a supervised internship in the third year would provide practical experience, bridge the gap between theory and practice, and better prepare students for the legal profession. According to this perspective, a two-year program would still provide a comprehensive legal education, focusing on practical skills and real-world experience.
Addressing the Oversupply of Lawyers
One of the main concerns with drastically reducing the length of law school is the potential for an even more severe 'oversupply' of lawyers in the U.S. market. To counter this, it may be necessary to implement admission requirements that include several years of post-undergraduate work experience before a student is eligible to apply to any accredited U.S. law school. This approach ensures that only those with the right background and preparation are admitted to law school, thereby potentially balancing the supply and demand of legal professionals.
Enhancing Legal Education Quality
A primary argument against reducing law school duration is the quality of education that would be compromised. Legal education should not merely focus on passing bar exams but should provide a broad foundation in legal principles and liabilities that apply to various fields. Top law schools already recognize this by not tailoring their curriculum to specific bar exams but instead offering a wide range of coursework that covers various jurisdictions.
Practical Learning vs. Bar Exams
Top law schools emphasize the importance of practical learning over specific bar exam preparation. This is because the legal market requires graduates to adapt to numerous jurisdictions and practice areas. For example, a student at a prestigious school like Penn might graduate to face dozens of different state bar exams. Tailoring law school curriculum to a specific bar exam would limit the adaptability of graduates to the diverse legal landscape.
Importance of Drafting and Appellate Work
While drafting and briefwriting are crucial skills, the focus in top law schools is primarily on appellate work. This is because appellate work is foundational for legal professionals and provides broad applicability to various fields. Briefing and drafting skills can be refined and adapted to specific practice areas after graduation.
Law Firm Expectations
Hiring officers in larger law firms are not expecting incoming first-year associates to generate significant business. The role of the first-year lawyer is to learn, contribute to team projects, and gain experience. This is a business skill that can be developed over time and is not the primary focus of legal education. Instead, law school should concentrate on providing a robust legal education that prepares students for their future legal careers.
In conclusion, the two-year law school program with supervised internships offers a balanced approach to legal education. It ensures practical experience and real-world application, addresses the issue of oversupply, and maintains the quality of legal education. Admissions standards should be raised to include post-undergraduate work experience, making sure that only well-prepared applicants enter law school. This comprehensive approach would better equip future legal professionals for the diverse and dynamic legal landscape.