Educating Lawyers Now and Then: Two Carnegie Critiques of the Common Law and the Case Method

James R. Maxeiner

doi:10.1017/S0731126500001955

1 Sullivan, William M., Colby, Anne, Wegner, Judith Welch, Bond, Lloyd and Shulman, Lee S., Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Preparation for the Professions Program, 2007).Google Scholar

2 Redlich, Josef, The Common Law and the Case Method in American University Law Schools: A Report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Bulletin No. 8 (1914).Google Scholar

3 The fourth principal theme of the PPP Legal Education Report, dealing with assessment, has no counterpart in the Redlich Report and is not addressed here.Google Scholar

4 Maxeiner, James R., Josef Redlich, in 3 Germany and the Americas 917 (Thomas Adam, ed. 2005).Google Scholar

5 Since the case method is identified with the first year of law school, it is relevant to mention that my teaching experience does including teaching four times, a six hour, first year contracts class.Google Scholar

6 Sullivan, William M., Work and Integrity: The Crisis and Promise of Professionalism in America (2^nd ed. 2005). This is a revision under the Foundation's imprimatur of the first edition of Sullivan's book by the same name published in 1995. The study of clergy education has already appeared: Charles R. Foster et al., Educating Clergy: Teaching Practices and Pastoral Imagination (2005). Information about the PPP is available at http://www.camegiefoundation.org/programs/index.asp?key=28.Google Scholar

7 Sullivan, , supra note 6, at 195.Google Scholar

8 Sullivan, , supra note 6, at 207.Google Scholar

9 Sullivan, , supra note 6, at 208. “Apprenticeship” in modern learning theory has a meaning different from that usual in law. In its dictionary meaning and in law it entails a contractual relationship between master and apprentice which obligates the master to instruct the apprentice in the master's trade and which requires the apprentice to provide services for the master. In learning theory, on the other hand, apprenticeship refers to formal instruction of “student-novices” by “teacher-experts.” Cf. PPP Legal Education Report 61. To avoid confusion with law office study, an historic form of American legal education which was an apprenticeship, this Article avoids use of the term, but uses the dictionary definition except when quoting the PPP Legal Education Report. See Apprentice, Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004); Apprentice, Oxford English Dictionary Online Edition.Google Scholar

10 PPP Legal Education Report 188.Google Scholar

11 A search made February 22, 2007 of the Lexis U.S. and Canadian Law Reviews Combined database resulted in only one hit for the search “case dialogue method” or “case-dialogue method.” That is an article by one of the authors of the PPP Legal Education Report: Judith Wegener, 2003 AALS Annual Meeting Discussion: Better Writing, Better Thinking: Thinking Like A Lawyer, 10 Legal Writing 9, 16 (2004). The search term “case method” in the same database returned 1962 hits.Google Scholar

12 PPP Legal Education Report 185.Google Scholar

13 PPP Legal Education Report 191.Google Scholar

14 PPP Legal Education Report 191.Google Scholar

15 PPP Legal Education Report 194.Google Scholar

16 PPP Legal Education Report 15.Google Scholar

17 Abraham Flexner, , Medical Education in the United States and Canada, Bulletin No. 4 (1910), available at http://books.google.com (collected with Bulletins Nos. 1 to 3). It was followed by a companion volume: Medical Education in Europe: A Report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Bulletin No. 6 (1912). See also Abraham Flexner, Medical Education: A Comparative Study (1925)Google Scholar

18 See, e.g., Association of American Medical Colleges, The Handbook of Academic Medicine: How Medical Schools and Teaching Hospitals Work 1 (2004) [hereafter cited as Handbook of Academic Medicine].Google Scholar

19 Pritchett, Henry S., Preface, in Redlich Report v,Google Scholar

20 PPP Legal Education Report 18 (referring to the Flexner report as a “landmark”), 94.Google Scholar

21 Cooke, Molly, Irby, David M., Sullivan, William & Ludmerer, Kenneth M., American Medical Education 100 Years after the Flexner Report, 2006 N. ENGL. J. Med. 355: 1339.Google Scholar

22 Lagemann, Ellen Condliffe, Private Power for the Public Good. A History of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 75 (1983).Google Scholar

23 Reed's two principal studies were Training for the Public Profession of the Law: Historical Development and Principal Contemporary Problems of Legal Education in the United States with Some Account of Conditions in England and Canada, Bulletin No. 15 (1921) and Present-Day Law Schools in the United States and Canada, Bulletin No. 21 (1928). Reed was responsible for an annual review of legal education that appeared in the 1920s and early 1930s. It printed a number of other studies including one with a cover title that mirrors the PPP Legal Education Report conclusions: Alfred Zantzinger Reed, The Missing Element in Legal Education [cover page adds: Practical Training and Ethical Standards], in Review of Legal Education in the United States and Canada for the Year 1929, at 1 (1930).Google Scholar

24 Pritchett in Redlich Report vii.Google Scholar

25 Pritchett in Redlich Report v.Google Scholar

26 Pritchett in Redlich Report vi.Google Scholar

27 Pritchett in Redlich Report vi.Google Scholar

28 Lagemann, , supra note 22, at 26, 62–63.Google Scholar

29 Pritchett, Henry S., Introduction, in Abraham Flexner, Medical Education in the United States and Canada, supra note 17, at xiv.Google Scholar

30 Cf. Lagemann, supra note 22, at 66–71; William P. LaPiana, Logic and Experience: The origin of Modern American Legal Education 163 (1994).Google Scholar

31 Redlich Report 29, 35. Accord, Robert Stevens, Law School: Legal Education in America from the 1850s to the 1980s 112 (1983)Google Scholar

32 It does for legal education what the PPP Legal Education Report says law schools should do for law: it utilizes an “integrative strategy … [to] link the learning of legal reasoning more directly with consideration of the historical, social, and philosophical dimensions of law and the legal profession, including some cross-national comparison.” PPP Legal Education Report 194.Google Scholar

33 Redlich Report 26.Google Scholar

34 Redlich Report vi.Google Scholar

35 Lagemann, , supra note 22, at 76.Google Scholar

36 Lagemann, , supra note 22, at 76–84, offers other explanations in addition to those mentioned in the main text here. Supporters of the reforms were fewer, less united and less influential than their medical counterparts. The American Bar Association itself was much smaller than the American Medical Association: only 3% of lawyers were members of the ABA, while 50% of physicians were members of the AMA. Moreover, case method was a “weaker educational paradigm” than the much stronger “laboratory cum clinic” that medical education reformers had. She states: “the case method had to be justified primarily as a superior way to teach legal reasoning. But was it superior to the skills of reasoning one might acquire through the kind of apprenticeship in a law office that the case method and the ‘scientific’ law school had been designed primarily to replace? One could certainly debate the point.” Id. at 78–79.Google Scholar

37 Pritchett, , supra note 29, at xi.Google Scholar

38 Flexner, , supra note 17, at 151.Google Scholar

39 Pritchett in Redlich Report vi.Google Scholar

40 Lagemann, , supra note 22, at 79.Google Scholar

41 Thomas Neville Bonner, American Doctors and German Universities: A Chapter in International Intellectual Relations 1870–1914 (1963).Google Scholar

42 Although dated 1914, the report was actually released April 4, 1915. “Holds Law Courses in the U.S. are the Best: Dr. Redlich says American System of Teaching is the Most Thorough Anywhere; Tribute to Case Method,” N.Y. Times, April 5, 1915, p. 8. The Lusitania sank May 7, 1915.Google Scholar

43 According to Robert Stevens, “the establishment was not willing to listen to criticisms of the case method.” Stevens, supra note 31, at 128 n. 42. Ezra Ripley Thayer, Dean of Harvard Law School, in private criticized “the very general principle of calling in Germans to pass on American instruction” and confided that “none of us are enthusiastic about the idea of an investigation by a foreigner.” Quoted in William C. Chase, The American Law School and the Rise of Administrative Government 100 (1982). Not long after the release of the Redlich Report, leading law reviews that might have discussed its proposals joined in hysteria against all things German. See, e.g., Note, The Philosophy of German Autocracy, 4 Am. L. School Rev. 315 (1917); M. Duguit, Law and the State, 31 Harv. L. Rev. 1 (1917); [John M. Zane], German Legal Philosophy, 16 Mich. L. Rev. 287, 288 (1918). See also Lagemann, supra note 22, at 82 (“Mounting xenophobia and anti-Semitism throughout the country also played a strong role in resistance to Reed's recommendations.”).Google Scholar

44 Redlich Report 29.Google Scholar

45 PPP Legal Education Report 74; cf. Redlich Report 29.Google Scholar

46 PPP Legal Education Report 3.Google Scholar

47 Redlich Report 29.Google Scholar

48 PPP Legal Education Report 49. Accord, Redlich Report 23 (“training the legal mind”).Google Scholar

49 Redlich Report 9.Google Scholar

50 PPP Legal Education Report 51.Google Scholar

51 Redlich Report 25.Google Scholar

52 Redlich Report 73. The Redlich Report often speaks of German law and legal education in a broad sense that includes Austrian law and legal education.Google Scholar

53 PPP Legal Education Report 185.Google Scholar

54 PPP Legal Education Report 51, cf. Redlich Report 29.Google Scholar

55 PPP Legal Education Report 186.Google Scholar

56 PPP Legal Education Report 47.Google Scholar

57 PPP Legal Education Report 188.Google Scholar

58 Reed, Training for the Public Profession of the Law, supra note ***, at 281.Google Scholar

59 PPP Legal Education Report 47.Google Scholar

60 PPP Legal Education Report 48–49. The remaining scenes, totaling over four pages, are drawn from the classes the authors visited and are transcribed at pages 67–68, 70–71, and 72–73.Google Scholar

61 PPP Legal Education Report 49.Google Scholar

62 PPP Legal Education Report 49.Google Scholar

63 PPP Legal Education Report 50.Google Scholar

64 PPP Legal Education Report 51. According to the PPP Legal Education Report, the classroom has an “inherently competitive character.” Cf. PPP Legal Education Report 188 (“competitive scholars”). The Redlich Report notes just the opposite: a specific atmosphere of cooperation. Redlich Report 31.Google Scholar

65 PPP Legal Education Report 75.Google Scholar

66 Redlich Report 29 (quoting Keener, 17 A.B.A. Rep. 482 (1894)).Google Scholar

67 Redlich Report 24.Google Scholar

68 Redlich Report 23 (quoting with approval and emphasis early case method promoter Keener). Accord, Reed, Training for the Public Profession of the Law, supra note 23, at 285 (students who “discover the law for themselves, are engaged in an activity much more closely resembling what in their later practice they will be called upon to do ….).Google Scholar

69 Redlich Report 24.Google Scholar

70 Redlich Report 25.Google Scholar

71 Redlich Report 40.Google Scholar

72 Redlich Report 35.Google Scholar

73 Redlich Report 36. Cf Reed, Training for the Public Profession of the Law, supra note 23, at 61–62 (“We have carried on the English tradition that law is nothing more nor less than a body of rules enforced by the courts, as contrasted with the Continental conception of an external body of law that exists under this name, independently of the form that the courts give it when applying it to concrete cases.”)Google Scholar

74 Redlich Report 37.Google Scholar

75 Redlich Report 37.Google Scholar

76 Redlich Report 40.Google Scholar

77 For a discussion of such differences, see James R. Maxeiner, Legal Indeterminacy Made in America: U.S. Legal Methods and the Rule of Law, 41 Valparaiso U.L. Rev. 517, 526–27 (2006). In brief: lawmaking is drafting and promulgating law; law-finding is determining the applicable rule and interpreting its content; law-applying is applying the found rules to decide particular cases.Google Scholar

78 Redlich Report 39.Google Scholar

79 Sullivan 81 (“The essential dynamic of academic procedures is the separation [of case method] from the activities of professional practice.”).Google Scholar

80 PPP Legal Education Report 55.Google Scholar

81 PPP Legal Education Report 53.Google Scholar

82 PPP Legal Education Report 53, 187.Google Scholar

83 PPP Legal Education Report 187.Google Scholar

84 PPP Legal Education Report 187.Google Scholar

85 E.g., PPP Legal Education Report 186 (“In particular, the academic setting of most law school training emphasizes the priority of analytical thinking in which student learn to categorize and discuss persons in highly generalized terms. … It conveys at a deep, largely uncritical level an understanding of the law as a formal and rational system, however much its doctrines and rules may diverge from the commonsense understandings of the layperson.“ (emphasis added)); PPP Legal Education Report 24 (“students are often disappointed or disillusioned to discover that legal understanding can diverge significantly from what they understand as moral norms or standards of fairness.”) Contra, William C. Robinson, A Study on Legal Education: Its Purposes and Methods 7 (1895) (“The rules which command and prohibit action are generally intelligible even to the ordinary citizen.”)Google Scholar

86 Redlich Report 18.Google Scholar

87 Redlich Report 34.Google Scholar

88 PPP Legal Education Report 22.Google Scholar

89 Cf. PPP Legal Education Report 193.Google Scholar

90 PPP Legal Education Report 56.Google Scholar

91 Redlich Report 35.Google Scholar

92 Redlich Report 35.Google Scholar

93 See also Part V.Google Scholar

94 Redlich Report 30.Google Scholar

95 Redlich Report 31–33.Google Scholar

96 Redlich Report 40.Google Scholar

97 Redlich Report 40.Google Scholar

98 Redlich Report 40.Google Scholar

99 PPP Legal Education Report 13.Google Scholar

100 PPP Legal Education Report 24.Google Scholar

101 PPP Legal Education Report 24.Google Scholar

102 PPP Legal Education Report 192.Google Scholar

103 PPP Legal Education Report 192.Google Scholar

104 PPP Legal Education Report 192.Google Scholar

105 PPP Legal Education Report 197.Google Scholar

106 PPP Legal Education Report 195 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

107 PPP Legal Education Report 195.Google Scholar

108 It points to programs at New York University and at the City University of New York. PPP Legal Education Report 34–43, 197. Such programs are found at law schools located outside of New York City as well, including in Baltimore.Google Scholar

109 Sullivan et al., supra note ***.Google Scholar

110 Handbook of Academic Medicine, supra note 18, at 3.Google Scholar

111 Handbook of Academic Medicine, supra note 18, at 3, 5.Google Scholar

112 PPP Legal Education Report 2–3.Google Scholar

113 See, e.g., Institute of Medicine, Academic Health Centers: Leading Change in the 21^st Century (2003) available at http://www.iom.edu (AHCs “are the places that train health professionals, conduct research that advances health, and provide care ….”); Training Tomorrow's Doctors. The Medical Education Mission of the Academic Health Centers, A Report of the Commonwealth Fund Task Force on Academic Health Centers 1 (2002) available at http://www.cmwf.org (the report seems generally to equate AHCs and medical schools, e.g.: “The education of our nation's physicians occurs primarily in academic health centers (AHCs)—the 125 medical schools and their affiliated or owned clinical facilities.”).Google Scholar

114 There is no generally accepted definition of an AHC, but at a minimum an AHC includes a medical school and clinical facilities, most usually, one or more teaching hospitals. See Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, Academic Health Centers: Leading Change in the 21^st Century 20–21 (2004).Google Scholar

115 See, e.g., The Blue Ridge Academic Health Group, Report 7, Reforming Medical Education: Urgent Priority for the Academic Health Center in the New Century 13–14 (2003) (“It has been well documented that both enhanced research funding and the Medicare and Medicaid funding for direct clinical care shifted the balance within medical school missions first toward research and then toward clinical care. Without the substantial, dedicated, and coherent funding streams available for research and clinical care, the education mission became the weakest leg of the three-legged stool.”); Training Tomorrow's Doctors, supra note 113, at x (“The medical education activities of faculty are valued less than research and patient care at AHCs.”)Google Scholar

116 Institute of Medicine, supra note 113, at 21.Google Scholar

117 Educating Doctors to Provide High Quality Medical Care: A Vision for Medical Education in the United States. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of Deans, Association of American Medical Colleges 4 (2004), available at http://www.aamc.org.Google Scholar

118 The “matching system” that matches medical school graduates to residency programs has 34 different types of residencies. https://services.aamc.org/eras/erasstats/par/ Google Scholar

119 Institute of Medicine, supra note 113, at 47.Google Scholar

120 Handbook of Academic Medicine, supra note 18, at 3. Distributions do not, of course, tell us anything about how much money we are actually talking about. While the figures provided by AAMC in the report referenced are incomplete on this point, they do tell us that in fiscal 2003, if we average the funds received over the 125 medical schools, the average medical school received $109.6 million in federal research funds (not including other federal funds) and $55.2 million in state and local appropriations. Handbook of Academic Medicine, supra note 18, at 3.Google Scholar

121 Id. While funding figures prominently in reports on the future of medical education, student tuition is scarcely mentioned. The Institute of Medicine, for example, calls for creation of an “education innovation of fund.” It considered three options for funding: none relied in any way on student payments; all look to Congress. One option was a new funding source: “[t]he education of health professionals is of sufficient value to society to justify the allocation of new funds to such an endeavor.” Institute of Medicine, supra note 113, at 119. It settled on reconfiguring present funding sources. Id. at 7. Incidentally it noted that Medicare is the “primary funder of graduate medical education.” Id. at 120.Google Scholar

122 A contemporary of Langdell did observe this possibility! See Law Apprenticeships, 5 Alb. L.J. 97 (1872). (“[the] want of systematic practical instruction is the great defect in our method of legal education, and it is beyond the power of the law schools to remedy unless they can incorporate actual legal business into their courses.”)Google Scholar

123 Cf. Reed, Training for the Public Profession of the Law, supra note 23, at 281.Google Scholar

124 See text at note 168 to 216.Google Scholar

125 “Clinical education must cover all organ systems, and include the important aspects of preventive, acute, chronic, continuing, rehabilitating and end-of-life care. Clinical experience in primary care must be included as part of the curriculum. The curriculum should include clinical experiences in family medicine, internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, psychiatry, and surgery. Students’ clinical experiences must utilize both outpatient and in patient settings.” Functions and Structures of a Medical School. Standards for Accreditation of Medical Education Programs Leading to the M.D. Degree. Liaison Committee on Medical Education, at 2 (2007), available at http://www.1cme.org/functions2007feb.pdf.Google Scholar

126 PPP Legal Education Report 33.Google Scholar

127 Id.Google Scholar

128 John J. Costonis, The MacCrate Report: Of Loaves, Fishes, and the Future of American Legal Education, 43 J. LEGAL EDUC. 157, 196–97 (1993).Google Scholar

129 PPP Legal Education Report 100.Google Scholar

130 Cf. PPP Legal Education Report 44. And now law schools must be concerned not with just one national society, but with legal systems around the world. See, e.g., the newly founded International Association of Law Schools brochure, http://www.ialsnet.org/files/IALS-Ebrochure.pdf (“What is the IALS? … Its members are committed to the proposition that the quality of legal education in any society is improved when students learn about other cultures and legal systems and the diverse approaches to solving legal problems employed in those legal systems.”)Google Scholar

131 See, e.g., Reed, Training for the Public Profession of the Law, supra note 23, at 283 (“with the present tendency toward specialization in law practice, few offices could provide a student with experience that would be of much value to him save in one narrow and not always commendable rut.”).Google Scholar

132 See text at note 118 supra.Google Scholar

133 This list makes no claim to being either comprehensive or systematic. It is made without any reference to the literature of education.Google Scholar

134 These skills are named in the PPP Legal Education Report at 159 as skills likely to be taught.Google Scholar

135 In the 1930s and 1940s thousands of physicians, engineers and lawyers fled Nazi-controlled Europe. Most suffered severely. But physicians and engineers often could resume their professions in their new homes with relatively little retooling. Few lawyers could do so without returning to law school. Today, we see the same story repeated: thousands of foreign-trained physicians and engineers provide professional services in the United States, but few foreign-trained lawyers do and almost none without first obtaining a specifically American legal education. Accord, ROBINSON, supra note 85, at 17 (noting “the art of law is a local art” and “the skilled practitioner, removing from one jurisdiction to another, would find himself but little better suited for his labors than the untrained student ….”).Google Scholar

136 See, e.g., Robert S. Summers, What is the Area of Greatest Deficiency in Legal Education?, 6 Cornell Law Forum No. 3, 17 (February 1980) at 18 (“Tutelage within the law school setting is more essential in those subjects [of general theory and perspective] than in interviewing, counseling, and other nonlitigational skills. Also, many practitioners can do a better job of imparting skills of this nature than we can in the law school. Law schools cannot emphasize everything, and the question is what can be better taught in law school than by other life experiences and, especially, the early years of professional employment. Finally, I should add that there is considerably more teachable substance to the subjects dealing with general theory and perspective than there is to interviewing, counseling, and most other nonlitigational lawyer skills.”)Google Scholar

137 Skepticism of simulations in legal education is deep-rooted and can lead to preference for the medical model. See, e.g., Law Apprenticeships, 5 Alb. L.J. 97 (1872) (“Mock courts exist, indeed, but they are no more like real courts than a manikin is like a living man. We would laugh at a medical professor who should introduce at a clinic a patient that presented he was sick or wounded, and ask the students to doctor or carve such patient for practice.”)Google Scholar

138 As “drive-through” treatment in hospitals becomes more common, the get-to-know your client problem of lawyers is visiting medical trainees too. See Institute of Medicine, supra note 113, at 82 (“These trends give the learner less time to establish a relationship with the patient and to understand the multiple medical, social, psychological, and other factors that affect not only the course of disease, but also the individual's health and well-being. A short hospital stay provides a poor learning opportunity ….”).Google Scholar

139 See James R. Maxeiner, International Legal Careers: Paths and Directions, 25 Syracuse J. Int'l L. & Comm. 21, 43 (1998).Google Scholar

140 PPP Legal Education Report 100.Google Scholar

141 Law office study was unsystematic, because it depended upon what business came through the door. With respect to general matters, that is a disadvantage in competition with law school education. But with respect to transaction specific practice, it is an advantage. Law schools can not know in which law offices their students will practice.Google Scholar

142 (a) 1977–1980, Trial Attorney, United States Department of Justice. (b) 1982–1987, Associate, Walter Conston & Schurtman, P.C., New York City. (c) 1987–1991, Associate, Kaye Scholer LLP, New York City. (d) 1992–2001, Vice President & Associate General Counsel, Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.Google Scholar

143 In law school, I had three course hours of “practice training” (legal research and basic brief writing) and three course hours of trial techniques.Google Scholar

144 See, e.g., Redlich Report 41, 73; PPP Legal Education Report 57, 132.Google Scholar

145 Redlich Report 41; PPP Legal Education Report 132.Google Scholar

146 While the PPP Legal Education Report attends to courses in professional responsibility as such (i.e., law of lawyers’ ethics), the Redlich Report leaves these issues to practice.Google Scholar

147 Redlich Report 41.Google Scholar

148 PPP Legal Education Report 144. See also PPP Legal Education Report 196 (“The aim has to be stereoscopic: the ‘big picture’ of the profession, its history, aims, and context, as well as that of the law itself ….”).Google Scholar

149 Redlich Report 45. See id. at 41–46. A civilian who has long taught in America makes a similar recommendation. Alan Watson, The Shame of American Legal Education 198 (2006).Google Scholar

150 PPP Legal Education Report 153. “The goal is to give students greater breadth and a sense that there are many ways to look at the law at the same time that their other courses ask them to narrow their perspectives in order to learn the technical thinking and language of legal analysis.” Id.Google Scholar

151 PPP Legal Education Report 154.Google Scholar

152 Redlich Report 46. Lex ferenda, what the law ought to be, is to this day a frequently used term on the Continent, that is contrasted to lex lata, what the law is.Google Scholar

153 American Bar Association, Report of the Committee on Legal Education, Submitted to the Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association, August 24^th, 1892 (William G. Hammond, Chairman), printed in part in ** ABA Rep *** (1892), reprinted in part 26 Am. L. Rev. 705, 742 (1892), printed in full in 1 Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1890–91, 376, 406 (1894), and as Report on Legal Education, Advance Sheets from the Report of the Commission of Education for 1890–91 (1893), available at http://books.google.com.Google Scholar

154 H.F. Stone in Papers and Discussion Concerning the Redlich Report, 4 Am. L. School Rev. 91, 92–93 (1916). Frederic C. Woodward, Dean of Stanford Law School, was more negative still; he found himself “substantially in disagreement” with that part of the report and cautioned that introduction of a preparatory lecture course would be a “serious mistake.” Id. at 98, 99.Google Scholar

155 PPP Legal Education Report 197.Google Scholar

156 Redlich Report 41.Google Scholar

157 Redlich Report 49.Google Scholar

158 Redlich Report 63.Google Scholar

159 Redlich Report 66.Google Scholar

160 Redlich Report 55.Google Scholar

161 Redlich Report 56.Google Scholar

162 Redlich Report 54–59. The PPP Legal Education Report repeats the Langdell model without comment. PPP Legal Education Report 5–6.Google Scholar

163 Redlich Report 56.Google Scholar

164 Redlich Report 63.Google Scholar

165 Redlich Report 50.Google Scholar

166 Redlich Report 50.Google Scholar

167 Redlich Report 74. Accord, Robinson, supra note 85, at 5 (“The law is an ethical science. … Its end is the production of social order in which the varied faculties of man may enjoy the widest liberty of action, and the program of the race toward its destiny may most easily and effectually be secured.”)Google Scholar

168 Redlich Report 23–25.Google Scholar

169 Langdell, C.C., A Selection of Cases on the Law of Contracts (1871).Google Scholar

170 Shepard, Harold & Costigan, George P., Cases and Materials on the Law of Contracts, [being] A complete revision of Cases on contracts, third edition, by George P. Costigan, Jr. (1939).Google Scholar

171 Ogden, Gregory L., The Problem Method in Legal Education, 34 J. Legal Ed. 654 (1984).Google Scholar

172 See Calabresi, Guido, A Common Law for the Age of Statutes 1 (1982) (referring to the “statutorification” of American law); William N. Eskridge, Jr. et al., Legislation And Statutory Interpretation 2 (2000).Google Scholar

173 Calabresi, , supra note 172, at 1.Google Scholar

174 Cf., Garner, David D., The Continuing Vitality of the Case Method in the Twenty-First Century, 2000 B.Y.U. Ed. & L.J., 307, 330–38 (summarizing criticisms of the case method).Google Scholar

175 Ballantine, Henry Winthrop, Adapting the Case-Book to the Needs of Professional Training, 2 Am. L. School Rev. 135, 137 (1908) (“If the object of the three year course is to equip the graduate for the actual work of his profession, why not substitute for books of pre-selected opinions, books of concrete facts or skeleton cases raising the important and crucial issues of the different topics of the law.”)Google Scholar

176 HLS faculty unanimously approves first-year curricular reform, News Release of Harvard Law School (Oct. 6, 2006), available at http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2006/10/06_curriculum.php. With modesty typical of Harvard, Dean Elena Kagan states: “Over 100 years ago, Harvard Law School invented the basic law school curriculum, and we are now making the most significant revisions to it since that time. … [W]e will add new first-year courses in international and comparative law, legislation and regulation, and complex problem solving – areas of great and ever-growing importance in today's world.”Google Scholar

177 Cf., Zile, Philip T. Van, Practice Work in Law Colleges, 2 Am. L. School. Rev. 71, 73–75 (1907) (discussing practice courts).Google Scholar

178 See, e.g., Morgan, E.M., The Legal Clinic, 4 Am. L. School Rev. 255 (1917); Rowe, William V., Legal Clinics and Better Trained Lawyers—A Necessity, 11 Ill. L. Rev. 591 (1917).Google Scholar

179 Redlich Report 18.Google Scholar

180 PPP Legal Education Report 5.Google Scholar

181 Reed, Training for the Public Profession of the Law, supra note 23, at 283.Google Scholar

182 Reed, Training for the Public Profession of the Law, supra note 23, at 281.Google Scholar

183 Reed, Training for the Public Profession of the Law, supra note 23, at 283.Google Scholar

184 A kind of informal law office study, however, continues. As in Redlich's day, many law students work in law offices while pursuing law degrees at night or part time. Many other law graduates, probably most, who complete law school studies without legal work experience (other than summer clerkships), do not begin legal practice on their own, but start work as associates in law firms or as junior attorneys, as judicial law clerks, or as junior jurists in other law jobs. They begin their jobs by assisting more senior attorneys and then gradually take on matters of increasing importance in their own responsibility.Google Scholar

185 Redlich Report 67.Google Scholar

186 See., e.g., Law Apprenticeships, 5 Alb. L.J. 97 (1872) (“Only those fortunate youths whose training has been properly conducted in both school and office have no reason to regret wasted time and effort. We say properly conducted, for mere attendance at both places will not qualify one for the legal profession ….”).Google Scholar

187 See Reed, Training for the Public Profession of the Law, supra note 23, at 261 (discussing the “New York Controversy” of 1875–1882); Proceedings of the Section of Legal Education, in REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH ANNUAL MEETING OF the American Bar Association 632, 649 (1911) (a contemporaneous discussion of another such recommendation of the State Board of Bar examiners).Google Scholar

188 PPP Legal Education Report 16–17.Google Scholar

189 PPP Legal Education Report 15–16, 153.Google Scholar

190 John Law, Articling in Canada, 43 S. Tex. L. Rev. 449 (2002) (giving particular attention to articling in Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia). For a view of Canadian legal education, see Annie Rochette & W. Wesley Pue, “Back to Basics”? University Legal Education and 21^st Century Professionalism, 20 Windsor Y.B. Access Just. 167 (2001).Google Scholar

191 Pue, W. Wesley, Law School: The Story of Legal Education in British Columbia (1995) available at http://faculty.law.ubc.ca/Pue/historybook/school01a.html. UBC Law School has an Articling Committee that is attached to its career services office that makes available to students an Articling Handbook. http://faculty.law.ubc.ca/orientation/16-1.html.Google Scholar

192 http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/licensing_membership/becoming_bc_lawyer/admission_program.html.Google Scholar

193 http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/publications_forms/forms/MS-admissions/articling-agmt.pdf.Google Scholar

194 Redlich Report 68–69.Google Scholar

195 Llewellyn, Karl, On What is Wrong with So-called Legal Education, 35 Colum. L. Rev. 651, 657 (1935) (emphasis in original). This is still the German system seventy years later, although it has been shortened to two years.Google Scholar

196 See Kilger, Hartmut, Wie der angehende Anwalt ausgebildet sein muss, 2007 Anwaltsblatt 1 (article by the president of the German Bar Association, i.e., DeutscherAnwaltVerein); Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Einführung einer Spartenausbildung in der Juristenausbildung: Gesetzentwurf des Deutschen Anwaltvereins (DAV), 2007 Anwaltsblatt 45 (draft law).Google Scholar

197 See Maxeiner, James R. & Yamanaka, Keiichi, 13 Pac. Rim Law & Policy J. 303 (2004). See also, James R. Maxeiner, American Law Schools as a Model for Japanese Legal Education?, 24 Kansai Univ. Rev. L. & Politics 37 (2003); James R. Maxeiner, The Professional in Legal Education: Foreign Perspectives, 38 Himeji Hogaku—姫路法学—Himeji L. Rev. 246, 241–237 (2003) [this a Japanese language publication, so this exceptional contribution in English the pages run in descending order]; James R. Maxeiner, The Rule of Law in the Reform of Legal Education: Teaching the Legal Mind in Japanese Law Schools, 25 Kansai Univ. Rev. L. & Politics 63 (2004).Google Scholar

198 See generally Phan, Pamela N., Note From the Field: Clinical Legal Education in China: In Pursuit of a Culture of Law and a Mission of Social Justice, 8 Yale H.R. & Dev. L.J. 117 (2005); Kara Abramson, Paradigms in the Cultivation of China's Future Legal Elite: a Case Study of Legal Education in Western China, 7 Asian-Pacific L. & Pol'y J. 302, 320 (2006).Google Scholar

199 Redlich Report 63.Google Scholar

200 Goodrich, Herbert F., The Story of the American Law Institute, 1951 Wash. U.L.Q. 283, 288. The purpose of the Institute as stated in its 1923 charter could practically have been drawn straight from the Redlich Report of 1914. It is “to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice and to encourage and carry on scholarly and scientific legal work.” Id. at 285–86. According to Lagemann, the Carnegie Corporation cut off funding to the American Law Institute at the insistence of trustee Russell Leffingwell, a practicing lawyer who considered legal science out of touch with the needs of practice. Lagemann, supra note 22, at 78,Google Scholar

201 Maxeiner, , supra note 4.Google Scholar

202 Redlich Report 48.Google Scholar

203 The Redlich Report has much praise for the Harvard Law Review of 1914; it likens the Review's members to a “kind of general staff” selected for “exertion and ability.” Redlich Report 33. It marveles that “[t]he amount of scientific legal labor … is a wonderful accomplishment on the part of teachers and pupils ….” Redlich Report 49. It is hard to conceive of a finding that there is much scientific in the Review's best-selling product today, The Bluebook. A Uniform System of Citation (18^th ed. 2005), or in the competition for membership (one week long: 60% writing a twenty-page case comment using pre-selected materials only; 40% doing a “subcite” test, i.e., correcting a student comment for citation and language errors that have been deliberately introduced). http://www.harvardlawreview.org/membership.shtml and hear the linked audio/video. The Bluebook fits the common law stock preconception of civil law codes better than does any civil law code.Google Scholar

204 Redlich Report 63.Google Scholar

205 Cf., Rakoff, Todd D., Introduction [to Symposium: Law, Knowledge, and the Academy], 115 Harv. L. Rev. 1278, 1281 (2002).Google Scholar

206 Posner, Richard A., Legal Scholarship Today, 115 Harv. L. Rev. 1314, 1316 (2002). See also Gregory Mitchell, Empirical legal Scholarship as Scientific Dialogue, 83 N.C.L. Rev. 167 (2004).Google Scholar

207 Posner, , supra note 206, at 1316.Google Scholar

208 Redlich Report 55.Google Scholar

209 PPP Legal Education Report 7.Google Scholar

210 Posner, , supra note 206, at 1320.Google Scholar

211 Edwards, Harry T., The Growing Disjunction Between Legal Education and the Legal Profession, 91 Mich. L. Rev. 34 (1992).Google Scholar

212 Redlich Report 63.Google Scholar

213 Redlich Report 65.Google Scholar

214 Schuler, Thomas, Amerika immer im Recht. Wie Amerika sich und seine Ideale verrät 91 (2003) („Sie betrachten stets nur den einzelnen Fall. Wenn ein einzelner Fall als gerecht gelten darf, dann ist das ganze System gerecht. All jene Fälle, die nicht zur Verhandlung kommen, mögen ungerecht verlaufen—es scheint die Mehrheit nicht zu kümmern.“).Google Scholar

215 See, e.g., Schlesinger, Rudolf B., Comparative Criminal Procedure: A Plea For Utilizing Foreign Experience, 26 Buff. L. Rev. 361 (1977) (“I shall explore a few aspects of our law of criminal procedure that, in the light of comparable foreign solutions, appear to me to be intolerably archaic, inefficient, unjust, and indeed perverse.”)Google Scholar

216 Address, February 13, 1984, quoted in 52 U.S. Law Week 2471 (February 28, 1984).Google Scholar

Article contents

Educating Lawyers Now and Then: Two Carnegie Critiques of the Common Law and the Case Method

Extract

Access options

References

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.

Article contents

Educating Lawyers Now and Then: Two Carnegie Critiques of the Common Law and the Case Method

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests