Legal Education Has Lost Its Way

Millions of Americans are denied legal representation, and law schools are churning out lawyers who can’t meet society’s needs. It’s time for a two-track system.

Legal education has lost its way. Its primary purpose should be training lawyers to meet society's legal needs, yet no one involved—law schools, faculty, or bar exam prep companies—seems to care. These actors are too invested in the status quo to allow for meaningful reform. The solution? Overhaul legal education by creating two tracks: one for practicing attorneys and another for designing the legal systems of the future.

Millions of Americans can't afford basic legal representation. This violates core constitutional guarantees. The Fourth through Eighth Amendments promise specific legal rights—rights that become meaningless without access to counsel. 

Constitutional protections against government overreach mean nothing without legal representation. Try fighting an illegal search, property seizure, or jury denial alone—you'll lose. The same holds for everyday legal battles: Unrepresented parties consistently lose to represented landlords, employers, and ex-spouses. Without a lawyer, both your constitutional rights and personal interests are effectively unenforceable.

Our constitutional and social orders cannot function as intended if people cannot access an attorney. They will actively unravel (as they are already doing) if only some people can make good on their promises and protections. The legal profession cannot idly let this occur if its members are going to uphold their oaths to support the Constitution and assume a special responsibility for the quality of justice.

Writing Better Laws, Not Just More Laws

The nation also has a broader need that is going unmet: lawyers trained to rethink outdated laws and design systems that support human flourishing—legal architects. Decades of an insistence on legal positivism (the philosophy that law is a set of rules created by human authorities, distinct from morality or ethics) at the exclusion of any real consideration of natural law has produced an innumerable set of rules, regulations, and laws that quash individual liberty rather than secure it. Lawyers today lack creativity and are trained to follow rules, not question them. For every problem, they propose another law—stifling innovation and liberty. The accumulation of law now suffocates the pioneers, the entrepreneurs, and the civil society leaders who built America. 

Without legal architects, the law struggles to keep up with societal changes, new technologies, and evolving political realities. The substance and enforcement of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 does not check the means used by Big Tech and other corporate behemoths of the modern era to entrench their power.

So long as law schools operate as they do today, these failures will persist. It is no secret that law schools fail to train practice-ready attorneys. If assisting the public with their legal causes is an animating principle of the profession (as it should be), then legal education must graduate lawyers capable of meeting a growing demand for legal services. 

Yet, reorienting legal education around legal services would frustrate the education of lawyers as legal architects. Class time spent working on drafting a complaint, creating a will, and operating a small firm is not conducive to producing deep thinkers about the underlying goals of the law itself. 

In contrast, the education of legal architects would involve a wildly different classroom experience. Whereas legal practitioners may study case law on how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Equal Protection Clause, legal architects would spend that time studying what equality under the law should mean in practice—unconstrained by case law. 

That's why law education as we know it cannot persist. It must be divided. But don't expect law schools to lead the charge. They've ignored calls for reform for nearly a century. 

A 90-Year-Old Call for Bifurcation of Legal Education

In 1935, legal scholar Karl Llewellyn made a similar case for reform. In his article, "On What is Wrong with So-Called Legal Education," he argued that those hoping for a shift in the legal profession should not look to those benefiting from the system. 

Llewellyn insisted that legal education should serve society—not just cater to students or academics. He pushed the profession to consider difficult but necessary questions. Are quality lawyers too expensive for everyday Americans? Can certain types of business be standardized and cheapened, and so made available to all who need counsel? Where is it adequate, and where is it not? Where and for whom are there gaps in the tasks performed?

The answer was apparent to him. Between the extremes of indigent and well-off clients was "an unexplored, unexploited, unattended range of legal need." It troubled him that the profession did not know or necessarily care about the scope and nature of that need. This need is essential to understand and critical to shaping legal education. 

Contemporaries of Llewellyn were not prepared to act on his call for reform. Upon sharing his paper with other scholars, he scoffed that one responded by contending that "students were entitled to have [the type of legal education] they came for." Llewellyn's peers dismissed his ideas, showing "truly neither law students nor law professors, as masses, have begun to appreciate either their job, or what can be done with that job." 

"No faculty," not even "one percent of instructors," according to Llewellyn, "knows what [they] are really trying to educate for." Instead, he observed a tendency among the legal profession to "cling inertly and incuriously" to an "outmoded tradition." The crutch of tradition thwarted the profession from realizing that the merits of tradition only go so far—"useful here, wasteful or futile there." Llewellyn explained that law schools operated "as if there were a single kind of lawyer, with a single kind of practice, for which a single kind of training would suffice."

The idea that one type of lawyer can meet all legal needs is as outdated now as it was in 1935. Law schools and the legal academy must adjust accordingly.

Comments

[sarcasmic]

If people trained in the law cannot be expected to know it all, how can the rest of us be expected to follow it?

[Not a Conservative but a Biden LOATHER]

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”
― James Madison

Reagan was openly mocked when he attached 'common sense non-binding interpretations " to his legal docuements. BUT

"Recognized as a major leader of modern liberalism in America, the lead author of the '64 Civil Rights Act famously quipped, "I will eat my hat if this leads to racial quotas.""
GUESS WHERE IT LEAD.

======> YOU ARE WRONG

[Stupid Government Tricks]

This, a thousand times this.

The legal system itself is the problem. It should be obvious when the Supreme Court rules 5-4, overturning an en banc 7-8 decision after the original 3 judge panel ruled 2-1, all with a year or two of study, discussion, and debate, with the finest law libraries possible, the pick of law clerks, and dozens of "friend of the court" briefs whose only concern is spinning the law to their benefit.

And all this after a trial, during which the jury was treated like naive imbeciles who had to be protected from inappropriate facts as determined by the judge, but once in the jury room, they were such marvels of intellectual wisdom that no one was allowed to question anything they said. And all without the benefit of law libraries, clerks, or "friend-of-the-jury" briefs. And they had to be unanimous, no split decisions for them!

And somehow the defendant was supposed to have divined the ultimate conclusion years before it was reached.

The US judicial system sucks.

Rule of Law is a fig leaf meant to cover up the naughty bits. Proof that we have Rule of Men is provided by the whole process, from legislators putting their name on laws they don't understand written by staffers who pretend they do, implemented by bureaucrats whose only goals are more subordinates, bigger budgets, and new regulations. Police pick and choose which laws they pretend to enforce, prosecutors pick and choose which cases to prosecute and to what degree, judges pretend to be neutral objective observers unless a peasant dares to not doff his cap.

[MWAocdoc]

I lost count of how many times this article is wrong at five (fingers on my right hand; "One, Two, Three, Many") and my final complaint is that there is no solution proposed. "Those invested in the current system" includes everyone who might start a new legal education track. So what is the proposal? The government should impose this vision of legal education on the Bar and law schools? In a free market if there were a significant demand for a new legal specialty, there would already be such educational opportunities and growing practices in that specialty. But, of course, these are rhetorical questions - legal groups such as FIRE and IJ are already filling some of the demand for this kind of defense and educating their practitioners in the art. With each new success, more and more supporters will be contributing valuable resources to the endeavor and growing it.

But the real problem with obtaining representation is the shortage of lawyers just as it is with every other profession. I recently contacted half a dozen lawyers in my region to ask them to represent me - or at least review my situation - with a view to taking action, and NONE of them said they didn't have a conflict of interest with the other party. When I contacted large legal firms further away, they didn't even have the courtesy to return my calls.

[Johnny Lawrence]

I have to go back and re-read the article, because my eye-rolling got in the way.

But this article seems wildly off the mark.

One: I’ve been practicing for 15 years—when I went to law school, I wouldn’t have had the foggiest idea as to whether to go the “legal architect” or “legal practitioner” route roughly 18 years ago.

Two: Individual schools are free to do what they want. If Delaware Law (I legitimately didn’t know that was a thing), wants to implement some two-tiered path, they are free to do so. Of course, the legal community is inherently elitist and traditional, so the only schools that will do this are Tier Three and Fours—the top schools aren’t going to deviate and risk upsetting their status.

Three: To the extent there is a lack of representation, it’s just an economic issue. Representation is there for those who pay for it. I’m not sure how you fix that basic economic issue without draconian rules on the Bar, requiring lawyers to work pro bono or at reduced rates.

Four: The “legal practice” route sounds fine, but if you are just training monkeys to spit out routine wills or other documents, welcome to a shit ton of incompetent lawyers that have no idea how to think creatively once the “off the shelf” doesn’t work. And unsophisticated clients aren’t going to realize their lawyer is a trained monkey with no actual ability.

I’m sure there are dozens of other things. But the fifth is this—this article is precisely what results from the “legal architects” of the world—I.e., legal academia. Useless pontification without any basis in reality or recognition of the hurdles and problems with the “proposal” (I hesitate to call such a vague call to action an actual proposal).

[MWAocdoc]

Well, one of the "flaws" I stopped counting at five was the idea that a right cannot exist if someone, somewhere cannot afford to avail herself of the means to enforce that right. Whether or not the lawyer assigned to the defendant is a competent lawyer is certainly an issue but it's not a fundamental principle as asserted here. I would have no problem paying an attorney to represent me, but I cannot find one willing to take me on as a client. That is also a problem (for me) but not a fundamental issue. I can still represent myself if need be. The fact that people who represent themselves almost never prevail in the "old boy" legal system is definitely an issue, but that issue IS a fundamental matter of principle destroying "equal protection under the law."

[Longtobefree]

Just refuse a lawyer take on a personal injury claim for the first ten years, or until his student loans are paid off.

[MWAocdoc]

That doesn't solve the lawyer shortage, it would exacerbate it!

[Longtobefree]

So what would be the downside?
If we just bring back dueling, who needs a lawyer?

[Dillinger]

the widow.

[Roberta]

...

Without a lawyer, both your constitutional rights and personal interests are effectively unenforceable.

How did we get here? Am I right to assume that some time in the past, when people had a dispute they found someone they could trust to resolve it. There was nothing technical about it. No rules required, because...no rules required! And then somehow it became a technical endeavor.

Medicine we can understand as technical, because the rules of how things work have to be discovered. Same with other technical enterprises. Law is different: law is invented. Same as a card game.

Can we ever get back to a world in which law is non-technical? Or have lawyers cemented themselves into prosperity, a world where you need their help to play the game because they made up and maintain the game?

Basically what I'm asking is, can we abolish law? Keep justice, keep peace, but abolish law?

[TrickyVic (old school)]

Lawmakers feel like it's their job to pass a new law for every little thing. Couple that with the authoritarian type who thinks the citizens are peasants meant to be ruled. That's how we got here

[Its_Not_Inevitable]

Or have lawyers cemented themselves into prosperity, a world where you need their help to play the game because they made up and maintain the game?

Yes.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Because the only real crime is violating someone's self-ownership (or "self-control" as I defined it before I knew of self-ownership, but that's an unimportant distinction), and the appropriate verdict is all the damage cost, all the lost wages, investigation costs, prosecution costs, etc. Lockup for public safety is an entirely separate issue.

You don't need twenty different definitions of theft. Pay back the money you stole. Jail time is pointless for an embezzler because his conviction alone makes him unemployable where he could embezzle ever again. As for burglars, robbers, thieves, muggers -- if they repeat, then they are a danger to the public.

You don't need all those different laws. You don't need lawyers. You just need investigators to find suspects and enough discussions to prove the suspects are the criminals or to let them go. Lawyerly quibbling has nothing to do with justice.

Victim prosecution would stop police abuse because they wouldn't have government prosecutors and judges covering for them. But the government looks after itself. The only reason lawyers exist is so the government can pretend they are following the rules, when they are not.

Why do prosecutors have absolute immunity in court, free to lie, to bribe and threaten prisoners into perjured testimony, to destroy and fabricate evidence, and otherwise do what everyone else would go to jail for? Why can judges hold people in contempt and imprison them for looking askance at insults, lies, and other biased utterances from the supposed neutral arbiters of justice? Why can cops steal and plant and lie about evidence, beat up prisoners, ignore sick and dying prisoners, and literally get away with murder? Because the Supreme Court "confirmed" the common law judge-made judicial absolute immunity in 1967, invented qualified immunity for all government employees the same year, and invented prosecutorial absolute immunity in 1976. I bet if you knew anything about these immunities, you probably thought they dated back centuries.

[MWAocdoc]

The law IS technical once it has been passed onto the books. Laws can be technically bad or good. They can be technically interpreted logically or illogically. More fundamentally, laws can be analyzed technically as to their effectiveness according to the goal intended in the real world. But getting to the phrase cited in your post, it is simply incorrect.

[Raccroc]

Instead of splitting legal education, why not just completely fracture it?
Look at the medical field... Dr., Do., RNP, RN, PA, med tech, and the list goes on and on. As a rule, you don't need a Dr. with 10+ years of medical training to look at your big toe, run a simple blood test, and then diagnose and treat you for gout. A PA is fine for that sort of family practice of medicine. Need an MRI? That is a trade school tech task.

Law should look similar. You don't need someone who has spent a decade in school before passing a comprehensive bar in order to defend you from a simple DUI charge. It is way overkill and could be served just fine by someone with much less of an education, but one that specialized in state and local misdemeanors and court procedures. Simple contract law could be learned in a trade school. Sure, if you are pinning a multinational oil rights contract between multiple countries and corp. entities, you probably need a whole team of contract lawyers who specialize in those things. But to create a simple rental contract, loan a buddy money as a simple business venture investment, establish a small c-corp, llc, or 501(c)(3), do you really need someone with a decade of schooling and internships?

You could move a lot of practice to 4y universities and replace the current pre-law with practical studies in specific disciplines as graduate and post-grad degrees. Between that and trade schools, you can make legal profession much more accessible to a lot more people and much more competitive rates.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

Isn't it fractured already? Corporate law, Tax law, Criminal law, ect.

When you go to school you can decide your track and take courses accordingly.

No?

[Raccroc]

Sure, but in all cases you are still going on the full lawyer track, which is a lot of overkill for many common services that people need.
My point was to reduce the overall amount of education, licensing, and/or certification for much of the profession's lower level services in order to make it more accessible to more people who want in that industry, which should in turn make it more accessible to more people who need those services.

An example: If you want to create a will, typically you would go to a lawyer who specialized in estate planning. That is fine if you have anything resembling an actual estate that needs planning. For most of your working class; however, do you really need someone with that level of education to divide up a couple hundred thousand bucks worth of real property and assets? Hell, right now most people can get by with boilerplate contracts and Google and having a legal profession with a lower education tract that can help in that space would be highly beneficial.

[Truthteller1]

I'm confused, the article does not describe what is being taught now and what should be taught.

[MWAocdoc]

That's because the author is confused.

[AT]

Like any other Marxist, he just wants entitlements. Something for nothing, off the back of someone else.

[AT]

Millions of Americans can't afford basic legal representation. This violates core constitutional guarantees.

No it doesn't. The State provides legal representation for anyone who can't afford it. Every single time.

Try fighting an illegal search, property seizure, or jury denial alone—you'll lose. The same holds for everyday legal battles: Unrepresented parties consistently lose to represented landlords, employers, and ex-spouses. Without a lawyer, both your constitutional rights and personal interests are effectively unenforceable.

Nonsense. They don't lose because they're unrepresented. They lose because they're pig ignorant about what they're doing. That's not the State violating their rights in any way shape or form.

[Johnny Lawrence]

There is a massive causation vs. correlation issue here, you’re right.

Based on my experience, a significant portion of the pro se folks referenced in that quote aren’t losing “because” they aren’t representing (at the very least, that’s far from the primary factor).

They lose because they are wrong. If you get evicted for not paying rent, you didn’t lose because you didn’t have a lawyer—you lost because you breached your contract.

[MollyGodiva]

Solution: Create an undergraduate law major that will allow the graduates to be lawyers. It could even be lawyer-lite, similar to nurses and physician assistants. They work under a full lawyer, but can do the bulk of the legal loads. Thus a good sized law office could be run with minimal expensive lawyers who supervise many lawer-lites.

[Johnny Lawrence]

That’s sort of the paralegal model is—the problem is that most paralegals can do the rote tasks, but not the critical or strategic thinking parts.

I suppose it could work for some types of work that aren’t particularly complex, but I’d have a heart attack if my paralegals were making any real decisions about a case.

[MollyGodiva]

This plan gives the graduates more education and thus more ability to handle cases. You don't need massive education or experience to handle misdemeanor cases, or housing court, or basic employment law. But that is where we need lawyers, to help people with stuff that is easy for lawyers but beyond the ability of most people.

[TJJ2000]

Which Gov-Gun Commie outfit isn't 'lacking'???
'Guns' don't make sh*t.
Can we now stop entertaining Communism and Socialism yet?
Isn't it about time to have a USA again for Individual Liberty and Justice for all?