Reflecting on our semester, it seems our collective goal, from the study of realism/formalism and then of firm paradigms, is to make the institutions of lawyering (from education to the actual delivery of services) more responsive to ideals that haven’t changed: procedural due process for all citizens and the achievement of just results.

During the semester a number of us, myself included, seemed to believe the costs of running a solo practice would be prohibitive.

I know Eben emphasizes focusing initially on “strategic” concerns (e.g. finding an area of expertise and type of service to deliver) rather than on “tactical” concerns (e.g. the nuts and bolts of running a law office), but AboveTheLaw? recently ran some pieces detailing economical options for those considering eventually opening up a solo practice. http://abovethelaw.com/solo_practitioners/

Here are some of the most interesting ideas:

1. A Virtual Office: for $100-300/month you can obtain a Manhattan mailing address, receptionist, voicemail service, and conference room time depending on the package.

http://www.nycvirtualoffice.com

http://www.nycofficesuites.com/virtualoffice.htm

2. Perks of Bar Association Membership: membership, at least in NYC, apparently provides free, book-able conference rooms and basic legal research services. http://www.nycbar.org/SmallFirmCenter/MemberBenefits.htm

3. Ideas for Generating Business

Web-Presence: Craigslist, LinkedIn? , Facebook, Blogging

Aiding the Media: may generate media appearances or quotations in local papers

CardScan Software: allows you to scan business cards into digital format. http://www.cardscan.com

1. Use your 2L and 3L years to become an expert in something – figure out exactly what change you want to effect and exactly how you are going to realize it

2. Force CLS to respond to your individual needs – aggressively seek mentoring relationships

3. Establish your own organization and find funding sources willing to invest in your cause

Reservations:

Even if we can find mentors at CLS, training at school may be insufficient to form a sustainable business immediately after graduation. People may be unwilling to fund inexperienced graduates, no matter how worthy the cause.

Are we all supposed to turn ourselves into entrepreneurs and sell our ideas? Is it possible to do so immediately without Eben’s pedigree (Yale law, SCOTUS clerk, Cravath, CLS professor, unique technical background)?

The problem is that we don’t know what we want changed. There are two fundamental questions that we have to address:

1. What do we want to do?

2. What do we need to know to be able to do it?

Question 1 can be answered relatively early in our law school careers. Some come to CLS with a plan but are derailed by the “cannery” system that is in place. Others enter without a clear objective and end up similarly molded.

Question 2 follows similarly, but I imagine the answer will unravel as we begin to explore opportunities under the guidance of profs. who believe it valuable to nurture an entrepreneurial spirit.

Difficulties: This is a novel plan, but I’m afraid of taking the next step. Maybe I’ve failed to live up to Eben’s expectation or maybe I’m afraid b/c I’m too risk averse. For law school to shift its paradigm seems counterintuitive b/c it suggests that the institution for learning about the very foundation of society is fluid and that the law is not the firm grounding that greater society embraces but something very dynamic.

Here’s the kicker: A united student body is required for law school to reinvent itself. The school that did change would be derided by those schools that remained static and other members of the old guard. Ultimately, if students, professors, and donors persist in their solidarity and pursue a course which embraced human values, they will succeed in producing lawyers who effect change with their words and not simply create canned meat.

Molissa: I think lawyering takes significant responsibility because it can directly affect our client's lives. Even though I strongly believe that I would learn a lot from classes, clinics, summer internships and externships throughout the school years, I still want to have some guidance from people who have more experience in the field because I don’t want to make any mistake. Maybe I should have said "me" instead of "us" because I spoke for myself.

-- SoeJungKim -

For law school to shift its paradigm seems counterintuitive b/c it suggests that the institution for learning about the very foundation of society is fluid and that the law is not the firm grounding that greater society embraces but something very dynamic.

To Jonathan: Your post suggests that because the delivery of legal services and education of lawyers is dynamic, the foundations of law must be dynamic: a proposition that need not be true. Reflecting on our semester, it seems our collective goal, from the study of realism/formalism and then of firm paradigms, is to make the institutions of lawyering (from education to the actual delivery of services) more responsive to ideals that haven’t changed: procedural due process for all citizens and the achievement of just results.

Secondly, it is possible that the law is the firm grounding that greater society embraces, in part, because it is at times dynamic. Citizens put their faith in the machinery of our justice system in the hope that it will furnish fairness. The recognition of human rights, shift to notice pleading, and emergence of class-actions for mass-torts all reflect dynamic shifts in the law which stand as efforts to realize the principles our legal system is grounded in. These shifts are consistent with liberal-progressive belief that human nature can be improved through advances in the law.

Is it possible to do so without also changing the practices of the market?

Michael: Maybe I understood Professor Moglen’s suggestion in a narrow way. Your interpretation seems more plausible and could be one nice option to think about.

Molisa: I think lawyering takes significant responsibility because it can directly affect our client's lives. Even though I strongly believe that I would learn a lot from classes, clinics, summer internships and externships throughout the school years, I still want to have some guidance from people who have more experience in the field because I don’t want to make any mistake. Maybe I should have said "me" instead of "us" because I spoke for myself.

Question 1 can be answered relatively early in our law school careers. Some people come to school knowing exactly where they want to go afterwards, but are derailed (obviously there are exceptions) by the system that is in place, which is, to adopt Eben's metaphor, a cannery. Others come in without a clear objective and end up molded similarly. So Eben's point was that if we want to break the mold, we need address these concerns to the administration (ie. line the corridors during their semesterly faculty meetings). In order to enjoy an environment that does not inherently create a biased view of the industry, we need to demand it. The fundamental issue is that we aren't exposed to opportunities in an effective way. The consequences of this are the grading system, the classes we are taught, and even the curriculum itself.

The second question follows similarly, but I imagine that as we begin to explore opportunities under the guidance of professors who believe it is of value to culture an entrepreneurial spirit, the answer will unravel.

This is a novel plan, but I am afraid of taking the next step. Maybe this means I have failed to live up to Eben's expectation. Maybe, as he suggested briefly in class, I am afraid because I lack the knowledge about what could happen. For a law school to break away from traditional norms is not only bold, it is somewhat counterintuitive (although admittedly, my knowledge of the history of the institution of law school is shallow). It is counterintuitive because it suggests that the institution for learning about the very foundation of society is fluid, and that suggests that maybe the law is not the firm grounding that greater society embraces, but something dynamic. Here's the kicker. For a law school to take this bold step, it would take a united student body. Assuming change was (perhaps reluctantly) embraced, the law school would be laughed at. Perhaps a parade of blog postings scoffing at crazy XYZ Law School. Then the other schools would fight it. They would levy criticism in scholarly publications, perhaps even devote a journal note to asserting how unrealistic such a system would be. But ultimately, and this is crucial, if the entire school from faculty to students to donors persisted on a course based on human values, they will succeed in producing lawyers, who affect change with their words, not simply crates canned meat. -- JonathanFriedman - 01 Apr 2009

Even if we could find the right professors and role models while we are at a law school, I don’t think training at school will be sufficient for us to set up our own business right after graduation and survive in the real world.

What makes you think you don't have the skills right now? Or that you won't have them by 3L year with clinics and externships under your belt? One thing that scares me most about the prospect of starting out litigating at a firm, as opposed to going straight into public defense or DA work is that the hierarchical structures at a firm will somehow drill into my head the idea that I won't be qualified to do anything useful - take a deposition, argue a motion - until I am at least five years into practice. They would sort of have to drill that idea into my head, so I would peacefully do my doc review in the hopes of one day, with more seniority, being put into a role where I could speak.

When I think of the people who are telling me I'm not ready to do these things, they all seem to have an interest in keeping me subordinated until I fill their cup with enough of my blood. I wonder if it's the same for you, too.

-- MolissaFarber - 01 Apr 2009

To be fair, I don't think Prof. Moglen (should I say Eben? I want to observe the class norms, but I also want to observe the traditional proprieties where it's warranted) meant to say that establishing our own organization is the only desirable way out of the bind we're in. What I'm taking from the course is that spending our time developing an individualized area of expertise, both through the resources available here and through our summer employment, is a very good start. Having done so, striking out on our own might be an option, depending on how far along we are at graduation, but we'll also be in demand with existing organizations whose missions we can assist, and who can provide us with additional training, perhaps leading to future opportunities.

-- SoeJungKim - 01 Apr 2009