utlaw2007 wrote: dixiecupdrinking wrote: Blessedassurance wrote:
dixiecupdrinking wrote: I disagree in that I have learned a lot about background legal principles in a lot of my core classes that I think will be very useful (i.e., essential)
i'm very happy for you. in the interim, see below (let's not even start on shitlaw):http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/busin ... d=all&_r=0
Thanks for your happiness on my behalf, it means a lot to me. As to your link, please. You want to take a class where you learn that when you close a merger you "draft a certificate of merger and file it with the secretary of state?" That took five seconds and now I know it. Every entry level job involves someone "underwriting the training" of new employees. This "law school is useless" thing is just one of those new pieces of conventional wisdom about law school that has some truth to it but is severely overblown. I agree that law school would be improved by cutting a year off and/or focusing on more practical skills, but it's really egregious bullshit to say that LRW is the only useful class you take.
I totally agree with this statement. And you guys keep on thinking that shit law is all law that is practiced that doesn't include two large firms. The ignorance is astounding.
A great law school, in addition to having a premium student body capable of getting good employment, is one that teaches its students how to think. In litigation, the common thread that binds all cases is the concept behind the remedies involved and the calculation of damages, conceptually. The principles are the same across the board. Obviously, jurisdictional issues are the same. Learning how to find distinctions among superficially similar facts that render the application of laws differently in each case, I feel is learned in law school. Arguing facts and support for those facts is not really learned in law school. But arguing the application of law, jurisdiction, especially if arguing whether sovereign immunity is waived, or any question of law that may arise at the trial level, is learned in law school if that law school has sufficient teaching of legal curriculum.
Real life cases are always going to have a slight twist from the situations used in law school to teach those concepts. And many times, there is a drastic twist in your case. But learning those principles and even more importantly, performing the mental gymnastics of sorting through and analyzing relevant factors, helps a great deal in the practice of litigation.
Two months ago, I did the impossible, I reached a significant, confidential settlement against a very large defendant before we had even reached summary judgment. I had terrible facts. Every lawyer said I would get nothing. Every expert scientist said I would get nothing. They all told me my theory was flawed. I finally found a nationally renown scientist that loved my theory. He thought it was spot on. And I eventually forced a significant settlement. I proved everyone wrong.
The point of that story is not to say that I learned how to do that in law school. That was all ability that God gave me. But the confidence in knowing that if a lawyer's argument for something is incredibly sound, it is as good as gold, I obtained through law school. And I feel law school sharpened those abilities.