Alternative Law School Models

I recently posted about the debate over whether law school should be two years or three years.  As I point out in that post, I think that the simple, two-year proposal is a bit too blunt of an instrument, so here, I aim to evaluate alternate models for law school.

The Medical School Model

Some commentators propose that law school should change so that it reflects the structure of medical school, with students spending their third year focusing on clinical work and real-world experience.  Vincent Rogeau, the dean of Boston College Law School, is a proponent of this approach.

I generally am wary of this approach because I think that it commonly overemphasizes the desires of employers rather than what is good for students.  Legal employers lament a dearth of "practice-ready" graduates, claiming that the law school curriculum is overly theoretical and that the burden of providing practical training falls on employers.  While this is a valid concern, the solution of devoting the third year to clinical work seems to shift the burden of training from employers to students.  Students are currently paid by their employers to learn the realities of practice and shifting this training to the third year of law school forces students to pay for it themselves in the form of tuition.  Students would be better off if they simply graduated after two years.

Rogeau's proposal suggests that this change could take place in a manner that balances the interests of the students and employers.  If students are given a stipend during their third year, or if their tuition is reduced, this would shift some of the cost of the system away from the students.  This sort of nuanced approach to the clinical year may be a solution worth exploring.

Law School as an Undergraduate Degree

Other commentators suggest that law should no longer be a graduate degree and should instead be offered at the undergraduate level.  Stephen Bainbridge argues for this reform, noting that the idea has historical and international support.  He points out that this approach would leave students with less overall debt and a legal education could still be useful to undergraduate students who end up not practicing law.

Daniel Rodriguez, the dean of Northwestern Law, responds by arguing that the legal field is becoming increasingly advanced and specialized, and that relegating law to the undergraduate level would leave students ill-prepared to confront this environment.  Rodriguez also notes the pressure on foreign law students to obtain graduate-level law degrees.  I would add that the law-as-undergraduate degree approach would make becoming a patent lawyer extremely difficult -- as students would presumably need to obtain a science degree and a law degree simultaneously - or obtain two undergraduate degrees at different times.  Additionally, without the additional filter of law school, this reform would probably lead to an even greater oversupply of lawyers.

Ben Barros offers an interesting take on this solution: offer courses at the undergraduate level that count for law school credit.  This would be a less-radical change, law school would remain to control the supply of lawyers, this approach would reduce costs for students, and the approach would help students specialize more effectively once they are in law school.  A danger of the approach that I don't think Barros fully appreciates is that this would lead to very strange dynamics on the law school application level.  Students who take law school courses at the undergraduate level would have a substantial advantage because law schools have a better idea of how they will perform and because these students have indicated that they are dedicated to studying law.  This would harm students who attend undergraduate institutions without access to undergraduate law courses -- giving students at liberal arts colleges or universities without law schools a disadvantage when they apply to law schools.

An Optional Third Year

Orin Kerr suggests that it should be possible for students to obtain a law degree in two years, but to have the option of attending for a third year.  Kerr makes this suggestion in light of Eugene Volokh's point that three years of classes may be necessary to gain an effective knowledge base for a career in general litigation.  Kerr notes that depending on students' interests, they may be interested in a third year of studies if they wish to specialize in a certain area of law.  On the other hand, students can graduate in two years if they do not wish to continue taking courses in a variety of areas, as Volokh suggests.

This approach may give an advantage to wealthier students who do not find it burdensome to take three years of classes.  With their heightened knowledge base, these students would be more appealing to employers than two-year students.  On the other hand, this problem may not be too severe, since many large law firms make hiring decisions at the end of the summer following students' second year.  This suggests that firms are not particularly concerned with the additional knowledge that students may gain in their third year.

Ultimately, I have not decided on what model works best.  A common theme I see, however, is that each approach has drawbacks that can be mitigated by tweaking the model.  Any alternate model must be adopted with caution and attention to the consequences.  New approaches must remain flexible so that they can adapt as their consequences become apparent.