|
<
< | To be honest, I sometimes feel uncomfortable when Professor Moglen mentions that his former students were fired from law firms. Today, I was once again intimidated by the number he wrote on the board, but at the same time, I thought that just because people are losing their jobs, doesn’t necessarily mean that they made a wrong choice. After all, lawyers aren't the only people who are losing their jobs these days. It’s the economy that cut the number of jobs the employers can provide. Public interest organizations are laying off lawyers too. So what should we do?
Today in the class, Professor Moglen gave us an answer: establish your own organization and find people who are willing to invest for the work you want to do to help people. But didn’t he also emphasize the importance of training and mentorship that most law firms apparently don’t provide? 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. I also don’t think people who are willing to offer money for a cause would trust any inexperienced graduates. Are we all supposed to turn ourselves into entrepreneurs and sell our ideas? |
>
> | I was intimidated by the percentage of laid-off CLS biglaw lawyers Eben wrote on the board today. Still, just because a person loses her job doesn’t necessarily mean she made a wrong choice. Within the current economy, even public interest organizations have laid off lawyers. So, what should we do? |
| | |
|
>
> | Eben’s In-Class Answer:
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)? |
| | -- SoeJungKim - 01 Apr 2009 |
|
>
> | To be fair, Eben did not say that establishing our own organization is the only desirable path. Spending time developing an individualized area of expertise – during the school year and summers – is a good start. |
| | |
|
<
< | 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) [ Use whichever makes you most comfortable! (Or least uncomfortable?) - MF ] 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. |
>
> | Hanging a shingle might be an option post graduation, but we’ll also be in demand with established organizations whose missions we can assist and who can provide us with the additional training required for solo practice and other opportunities. |
| | -- MichaelHolloway - 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? |
| | |
|
<
< | 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. |
>
> | One thing that scares me most about the prospect of starting-out litigating at a firm, as opposed to public defense or DA work, is that the hierarchical structure at a firm will condition me to believe that I won’t be qualified to do anything useful until I’m five years into practice. In order for me to peacefully do my doc review, they would sort of have to drill that idea into my head and use the prospect of more substantive work as a motivator. |
| | |
|
<
< | 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. |
>
> | The types of people who are telling me I’m not ready to do these things all seem to have a financial 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 |
|
<
< | I think this discussion is missing the point. Eben's delineated his firm's business plan in the midst of the discussion on how we, as consumers of a high-priced legal education, need to change the way/change what we are being taught. The problem is that we don't know what we want changed. There are two fundamental questions that we have to address. They are 1) What do we want to do? and 2)What do we need to know to be able to do it? |
>
> | I think this discussion is missing the point. Eben delineated his firm’s business plan in the midst of a discussion on how we, as consumers of a pricey legal education, need to change how and what we are being taught.
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 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. |
>
> | Eben’s point was that if we desire to break the mold, we need to pressure the administration (e.g. line the corridors during semesterly faculty meetings). In order to enjoy a law-school environment that does not inherently create a biased view of the profession, we must first demand it. |
| | |
|
<
< | 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. |
>
> | The fundamental issue is that we aren’t exposed to opportunities in an effective way. Instead we are oppressed under atomizing classes, a flawed grading system, and a flawed curriculum.
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. |
| | |
|
<
< | 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 |
|
<
< | Jonathan: Thank you for sharing the insight on what to take away from the course. I guess part of the reason that I was intimidated by the gruesome numbers is that I don’t really know yet what I want to do with my law degree. Like you said, at law school it is very easy for those without a clear objective to be swept away by the school’s curriculum and the goal it wants to achieve: providing what’s in demand in the market. Your idea of internally initiating change in the school system is bold and intriguing but it’s hard for me to conceptualize the change in a concrete way. How should our curriculum and grading system be changed to stop producing canned meat? Can we do this without the change of practices in the market? Is it why Professor Moglen repeatedly told us that we are lucky because the jobs that big firms provided are not there any more in this economy? |
>
> | Jonathan: Your idea of internally initiating change within a law school while bold is hard for me to conceptualize in a concrete way. How should our curriculum and grading system be changed to stop producing canned meat? Is it possible to do so without also changing the practices of the market?
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 narrowly understood Professor Moglen’s suggestion. Your interpretation seems more plausible and could be a nice option to think about. |
>
> | To Soe Jung: A theme running throughout Molissa, Jonathan, and Eben’s commentaries is that as students we have bargaining-power that can be maximized through collective action. As law students, we are consumers of our education. As young lawyers we are indispensable components of the biglaw firm. As elite law students we are a limited resource. Together we have power to refuse to be commoditized and to reshape markets. |
| | |
|
<
< | 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. |
>
> | -Jason |