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?

-- SoeJungKim - 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) [ 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.

-- 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? 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

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?

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