One of the many reason’s lawyers have such incredibly low career satisfaction, and one reason I don’t want to go Big Law: The Truth About the Billable Hour
[Via The Prejudicial Effect]

I wrote a Guest Post today for Evan over at Notes from the (Legal) Underground. It was in response to this post from last week by Prof. Childs.

Go on over and check them out, if you are so inclined.

I realize that I am not at a “Tier One” school where the focus is academic research. However, my school aggressively touted their legal writing program as a selling point and I bought it.

But now that I’ve been through a semester of it and I’m deep into the first assignment of the second semester. It’s become clear: this is not about writing; it’s about job training.

I don’t actually have a problem with that. But I do wish it had been billed that way. I understand the need to teach us how to structure memorandum, complaints, motions, memorandum in support of motions, briefs, etc. But the bulk of our time is spent going over rote procedural points that could, I think, easily been gleaned out of a text book or by example.

We don’t spend any time in class analyzing our thought processes, our word choice, the logical structure of our arguments. That’s sloughed off with the “Neumann Paradigm” which is to be committed to memory, and serve as the boiler plate for all of our writing moving forward. Fine. That’s all fine. It’s just a let-down.

But the kicker, the thing that actually bothers me is the constant, “the first assignment you’ll get when you join a firm.” Or, “this is how the partner you’re working for is going to want this.” Or, “the first few years at your firm are going to be spent doing this.”

God forbid any of us should want to start a solo practice. Or work for the state.

Or go into public service. Or consult. Or any number of things we could accomplish with our training.

This assumption that we’re all automatons gearing up to practice BIGLAW, go the traditional wage slave, er, associate route is *so* 1950. I know law is slow to change, but really, this is 2005. There are probably as many different reasons for being here as there are students. And a significant portion of us probably don’t want to practice BIGLAW. So fine, teach the course like we’re all going to end up the Anonymous Lawyer, but c’mon throw the rest of us a bone every now and then with an assignment that might actually pique our interest. And stop ramming the, “this is the way it will be” down our throat.

Finished my Criminal Final tonight, so just Torts left, and this semester is over! I will make no prognostication about my performance. I’m sure I did better than I think and not as good as I hope. Who knows? It will be another 5-6 weeks before I get my grades back anyway.

I have come out of this finals period with some valuable lessons though, which I would love to share for all you pre-1Ls out there:

1. Briefing is valuable for keeping up with the development of ideas in class, but the value of briefing for exams is minimal. (Keep in mind, this might not be true of more case-centric courses, like Con Law.) You should brief, but brief briefly. 🙂
2. Outline. Outline. Outline. Seriously.

Now, here’s the thing, everyone will say, “Outline the way that means something to you” which I think is a total B.S. cop out. I’m going to tell you how to outline:

First, start with your course syllabus, make each one of the topics a major header in your outline.
Next, underneath each header, make subheaders for each of the rules/concepts that apply to that section; use your class notes to round this out. Cross-check this with a hornbooks and/or commercial outline. Some of the “Understanding” series are really great… The Criminal One (Dressler) is especially good.
Now, under each rule/concept, fill in an example or descriptive paragraph. It’s best to do this from a synthesis of your notes and either a hornbook (preferably) or (if necessary) a commercial outline. The rules you can crib verbatim from the texts. Or from your notes, if you have a persnickety Prof. like my torts Prof., who wants us to spit back his definitions. But come up with your own explanations and examples that mean something to you.

Finally, refine your outline to your liking. Rearrange concepts in order that make sense to you. Commit the rules to memory, but pare down, hone, and tweak your explanations and your examples until they become second nature.

If you follow those steps, I think you will be well prepared. And if you don’t like that method, feel free to use a different one. But I wanted to share that because one of the most frustrating things to me about all the “advice” sessions they have at school is that everyone says, “outline.” Then, when you ask, “How?” They all say, “Whatever works for you”. If someone says that to you, feel free to answer, “If I knew that, dipshit, I wouldn’t be asking! I’m a g-ddamn 1L!”*

3. Re-exam how you are taking notes in class. Are you really writing down what’s important? Or are you blindly scribbling away, hoping to sort it out later? Spend less time taking notes on the cases and more time paying attention. Most of the case doesn’t matter anyway. Spend more time taking notes on the concepts. (Hint: only a few, if that many, concepts come up in each class period. That chump typing away in the back of class is either recording stuff that doesn’t matter, blogging, or e-mailing his girlfriend.)

4. Start your outline the first or second week of class. Keep it up-to-date. Not that I did this, but I wish now that I had. If I had, I could have spent reading period reviewing my outline, and seriously delving in depth into any concepts I was unclear on. However, as it was, I spend most of the reading period on… my outline. Which was beneficial (see the process above) but it would have been really great to hit the reading period with a (mostly) completed outline.

5. Don’t panic. Panic kills. Do whatever it takes on test day to relax. Get a massage. Be all loosey goosey. It doesn’t pay to be tense. At least for me.

6. Don’t post mortem! It ain’t med school. Don’t dissect the test. Your peers don’t have anything to add. Take a cue from the Army: Don’t ask, don’t tell. Guess what, you did what you could and now it’s over. You can’t change your answers and knowing now that an aggressor can re-establish their right to self-defense by withdrawing isn’t going to help you now, is it? Is it?!

7. Good luck! Honestly, exams are tough, no doubt about it. But the hardest thing is overcoming the culture of fear that swirls around law schools. I think the mythos is perpetuated by attorneys and upperclassmen who feel some sort of fraternal bond, so they want to haze the new guys. Half the fear and intimidation in law school isn’t from the work, it’s from your peers.

Matt Homann over at the [non]billable hour, has another installment of Five by Five, this time, featuring law students. The respondents include:

• Ambivalent Imbroglio
• Three Years of Hell to Become the Devil
• Sugar, Mr. Poon?
• Jeremy’s Weblog
• Buffalo Wings and Vodka

All of which are excellent blogs that any prospective or current law student should read. They offer some great suggestions for changing the legal education system.