(323) 652-9451(805) 845-1752
(323) 652-9451Following my post yesterday about the California Bar’s exploration of a possible skills requirement, I was pleased to see that my alma mater, Loyola Law School, has rolled out a new “Concentration” program which, according to the Loyola Lawyer, will require students participating in the program to “participate in at least one semester-long simulation or live client experience.” The Concentrations are in Civil Litigation and Advocacy, Corporate Law, Criminal Justice, Entertainment/Media Law, Environmental Law, International and Comparative Law, Public Interest Law and Tax Law.
Nice work!
Learn MoreThe California State Bar has apparently formed a task force to explore whether to “develop a regulatory requirement for a pre-admission practical skills training program” for new lawyers. Is this a good idea?
I think requiring a prospective new attorney to complete some kind of practical skills training is a really good idea. With some caveats.
First, the requirement shouldn’t be one-size-fits-all. In the perfect world, every prospective lawyer would get some exposure to various practices before he/she focuses, by choice or necessity, on a single area. Many of us litigators will wonder until we retire what it would have been like to practice as a transactional lawyer (and vice versa). That said, it would take a major overhaul of the American style of legal education to expose everyone to a little bit of everything. A more palatable approach would be to give prospective admittees a range of reasonable options for fulfilling the requirement.
The second caveat would be to avoid attaching a mandated proficiency level to the skills requirement. In California, at least, passing the bar examination is hard enough. Of the 4,382 people who took the California bar exam this past February, only 42 % passed and only 53% of those taking it for the first time passed. Those kind of statistics can be really discouraging to someone who invested 3 or 4 years of their life and roughly $100,000 toward a professional career. We don’t need to make the admission process more intellectually challenging.
I would argue that we do, however, owe both new practitioners and the consuming public an obligation to help ensure someone who holds a license to practice law has some basic practical skills. By the time I graduated law school and passed the bar examination in 1993, I had already “clerked” for two litigation firms. I had been exposed to depositions and court (as an observer), I had written, copied, blue-backed (remember those?), served and filed pleadings and motions. In short, I had a decent idea what courtroom lawyers did for a living. Although the early 1990s are typically remembered as a “challenging” job market for students and new admittees, most of my classmates who desired experience during the summers and their second and third years of law school found it.
From what I read and hear, the present legal job market makes the “challenging” early 1990s look almost like a “boom” period. At a time when new admittees who graduated at the top of their class from a top-tier school are struggling to find a position as an associate anywhere, it makes me believe the opportunities to gain practical experience before passing the bar examination are more limited. This will need to be addressed or our profession (and reputation) will (further)erode.
The major criticism of a skills requirement is that it will increase the cost of legal education. I fail to see the link between ensuring that bar applicants have some skills to go along with their theoretical training and higher law school cost. It may be necessary to adjust the nature of what is taught, meaning more clinical programs. Or, the solution could be training through volunteer or pro bono programs which, in addition to fulfilling the skills requirement, provides the disadvantaged with greater access to needed legal services.
Without the training I received during my two years as a “law clerk,” I still would have received training at the first firm who hired me as a lawyer. The problem now, as I see it, is that many are graduating law school, passing the bar and entering the marketplace without a job, forcing a great number of those who intend to enter private practice to open a solo practice without any skills training. These newly minted professionals will learn, eventually, by a process of trial and error, but woe to those who hire them!
Learn MoreIn addition to learning as much as I can about my opponent and the nature of his or her practice through his or her website, I also use the following resources to do more research:
4. State Bar Information. It’s pretty rare, but I do occasionally come up against someone who’s been disciplined, even suspended. There are a number of reasons why a lawyer can be disciplined by the Bar, and it doesn’t always signify anything I consider relevant. But it could, so I try to find out as much as I can. For example, if the discipline has related to commingling client funds or failing to communicate with clients, it could mean the lawyer does not make it a priority to communicate with his or client. This could become important later, if we get into settlement discussions and it’s critical his or her client is being kept informed of my client’s offer (or demand). Information about Bar discipline is typically available on the State Bar website.
5. Track record. Does my opponent try cases? This may not be readily apparent, but if I review the jury verdict sheets (I still use the paper kind) I can sometimes see if he or she has tried any cases in recent years and, if so, what kind of case and what was the outcome. This information isn’t always available. But if it is, it can be very revealing. For example, it might show a pattern of taking meritless cases to trial and losing (or barely wining). This becomes important when evaluating the likelihood of an actual trial later.
6. Reported cases. Has my opponent participated in any appeals that led to reported opinions? Actually, Lexis and Westlaw even report cases that are not officially published, which further broadens the field. If he or she was the sole attorney representing a party on appeal, this tells me that he or she probably has a fairly in-depth understanding of the issues and law in that kind of case. If our new case involves the same issues, this is important information for me.
5. Finally, I may send an email to some close colleagues and see if anyone knows or has dealt with my opponent before. This can provide a great deal of useful insight. One thing I’m looking for in particular is my opponent’s reputation for honesty or civility. Is he or she someone I can trust when they promise to communicate an offer to his or her client? Will I encounter resistance if I seek a reasonable extension or continuance?
From this information, I can generally get a decent “feel” for my opponent before I pick up the phone to call him or her and introduce myself (which I always do). Over the years, I’ve found different information useful for different reasons. Often, however, I know I’m going to be looking for leverage against my opponent or his or her client. This can come from a variety of sources, including “situational leverage,” which I will discuss in future posts, such as a disinclination or financial inability to take a case through trial. The earlier I learn this the more I can shape my defense accordingly.
One factor to which I never give any weight, which some might find surprising: where my opponent attended law school. I’ve encountered lawyers trained at the very best (ranked) law schools who had trouble knowing where to sign their last name, and really first rate lawyers who attended lesser ranked law schools. I usually find experience level to be a far more telling predictor of competence in the courtroom than law school ranking.
Learn More
