Wheaton Prof Steve Bretsen on Thinking About Law School

Earlier this semester, I had the chance to sit down and talk law school with my friend Stephen Bretsen, William Volkman Professor of Business and Law, Department Chair and Prelaw Advisor at Wheaton College. We made a short video as we discussed the advice that he gives Christian undergraduates as they consider law school as a next step. I think you'll enjoy our conversation.

I've divided our discussion into five short videos, 4 to 6 minutes each, and I'll be posting them between now and Tuesday. Here's the breakdown:

Part 1: Thinking about the Marriage, not Just the Wedding

Part 2: Bad Reasons and a Good Reason to Go to Law School

Part 3: Nuts and Bolts of Applying to Law School

Part 4: The (Dreaded) Personal Statement

Part 5: Choosing a Law School

Here's Part 1

Getting Ready for Law School? Get Your Mind Right

It's that time of year to talk about getting your mind right for law school. Here's a thoughtful piece from Laura Bergus over at Lawyerist.

Her gist is this: don't get lost in the drudgery and the difficulties. Instead, keep your head. Remember why you went to law school, keep your priorities and original vision, and don't forget to reflect regularly on who you are and what you're doing. Not her words, exactly, so read the short piece yourself.

More on this topic in the weeks to come.

And, by the way, my best advice for prospective law students: If you are not sure you should be going to law school . . . DON'T. Wait until you know.

Shrinking Biglaw and Career Planning

Professor Paul Caron, aka Taxprof, over at the always-worth-reading Taxprof Blog, has posted two items today that bear on our ongoing discussion of job markets, presuming on the future, and planning about law school.

First, he notes that the recent National Law Journal survey of the NL250, the largest law firms in the country, shows a continuing downward trend as BigLaw loses lawyers. TaxProf concludes:

"In the 34 years the NLJ has been surveying large firms to gather headcount numbers, there have never been multiyear declines of this magnitude."

Second, he quotes Stanford Law Dean Larry Kramer:

"Many college graduates jump into law school because they don’t know what they actually want to do. Parents and friends suggest it because they think it’s a safe default. But a grad should choose his life’s path only once he knows himself well enough to be sure of what he wants. I think people should first spend a few years exploring to figure out what engages their passions...."

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

If you are not sure how these two TaxProf posts are related, read them again, slowly.

Lawyers, Despair, and the Rule of Law: "Democratizing Political Murder"

I sometimes talk here and on campus about the tendency of the current generation of students to despair of justice in light of the human failings in our system. My word to them is that despair is rooted in the deadly sin of sloth-- the sin of "considering a worthwhile good"-- here, justice under the rule of law-- "not worth pursuing." In a country like ours, where the rule of law does for the most part reign (albeit imperfectly), Christians must pursue justice through faithful action and vigilant reform both from within the system and outside of it.

But what of those millions who live in places ruled not by law, but by raw power? What of lawyers who find themselves in systems where justice is never done? What happens when an entire nation lives in despair of justice?

In this amazing piece in the April New Yorker, David Grann masterfully unfolds a fascinating story of political corruption and the search for justice in Guatemala. At the heart of the story are two lawyers seeking justice. One, an upstanding citizen in a private law firm, is gunned down in the midst of his despair of finding the truth. The other, a world-renowned prosecutor, sifts throgh the "counterfeit realities" pitched by the contending political and criminal powers-- and by the murdered man himself-- to reveal the strange truth, and perhaps ultimately build a foundation for justice.

This fascinating study of justice, despair, and the law is beautfully told and filled with insights on the nature of corruption and the consequences-- for a man and for a country-- of despair.

I'd love to talk more after you read it . . . .

HT: Alan Jacobs on Twitter

Thoughts on Drudgery for Law Students

Lately I've been thinking about the challenges that law students face in the drudgery of the daily grind: cite checking, footnotes, legal writing projects. Or maybe it's the 50 pages of Contracts reading tonight. Or a boring prof. Whatever it is, at some point in law school, we're struck by the sheer minutia and drudgery of much of what we do every day in law school.

What should our response be when we hit that wall?

I want to suggest that "the grind" is a part of ordinary life, and that life is nothing if not ordinary. Daily. Life isn't life without the daily grind. It would be a retreat or a circus or a vacation or a spa if everyday were an exciting mountaintop experience. When every professor is Robin Williams, just wait a minute and you'll wake up from your dream. Like most jobs, law practice--even the highest powered litigation work or the most high profile corporate gig-- is made up of tedious detail work. Law school is a great time to embrace drudgery and explore ways that God infuses it-- and the other aspects of life to which he has called you-- with meaning. Here's Oswald Chambers:

"Drudgery is one of the finest touchstones of character there is. . . . It requires the inspiration of God to go through drudgery with the light of God upon it. . . . When the Lord does a thing through us, he always transfigures it."

My suggestions for law students:

1. Use drudgery as a tool to train yourself against the vices of procrastination, idleness, and dodging.

2. Justify mundane tasks in light of their bigger purpose. Meditate on the higher purposes of the most mundane of tasks.

3. Consider whether you are chafing against work that will be more commonplace after you've graduated (think research and writing, document review, drafting), and decide how you should alter or shape your career plans in this light. In other words, do you think you will hate your job, or relish the challenge? What can you do NOW to be prepared to embrace the daily grind?

Pre-Law Confidence: Optimism . . . or Delusion?

The News Editor blog over at the National Jurist reports that 52% of pre-law students surveyed in a recent Kaplan poll are "very confident" that they will find a job in the legal field after graduation from law school, and that a mere 7% "lack confidence."

Okay, that's amazing given the legal job market, but I suppose not downright shocking, given that the folks surveyed were from a group who had taken the LSAT this year, so they must have some reason for going to law school. But get this little tidbit:

"[O]nly 16 percent say they are “very confident” that the majority of their fellow aspiring lawyers will [find a job in the legal field].

* * * *

“Pre-law students’ confidence in their own job prospects are likely an indication not just of self-assurance, but of their optimism in an economic turnaround,” said Jeff Thomas, director of pre-law programs, Kaplan Test Prep and Admissions. “What’s interesting is the drop-off in confidence in their peers, which perhaps may just be an indication of the general competitive atmosphere that exists between pre-law students.“

To summarize: The economy is bad, the legal job market is bad, lots of folks are saying that this is a bad time to go to law school, but the only thing that has changed in the attitude of students taking the LSAT is that most of them think other people will have a tough time getting a job.

The quote from Mr. Thomas is interesting. He attributes this bizarre double standard to self-assurance, "optimism of an economic turnaround," and a competitive pre-law atmosphere. I'd say he's one-third right. Self-assurance-- or perhaps more to the point, foolish pride-- is at work. Students who don't know what law school is like have no idea whether they will do well in law school, and they certainly have no clue about others.

The fact is that every student applying to law school is shocked that he or she is not in the 98th percentile of the LSAT (it must be that I'm not a good tester) and cannot get into Yale or Harvard. First-year law students are shocked when they don't get all A's (the prof is unfair) and when they get their first legal writing paper back (prof don't know English) and when their first-year grades come back (I've never gotten a "C"!). Law school is a completely different world, and students don't know how to gauge their own prospects. This is primarily due to ignorance of the nature of legal study.

In order to be a bit more knowledgeable about the law school experience, I suggest doing some homework, coupled with introspection, before rushing headlong into law school:

1. Take at least three or four practice LSATs and evaluate what they tell you about aptitude and likelihood of first year law school success. Despite what some say, the LSAT is still an excellent indicator, for most students, of first-year success. If you are not as cut out for legal study as you think you are, don't blame the test. Plenty of very smart people do not have the warped aptitudes for law school. This is no shame. Study something you were created to study. You'll be happier.
2. Count the cost financially. Find schools that will not only take you, but will also give you some scholarship money based on your LSAT and GPA.
3. Read two or three books about law school AND about what lawyers actually do.

I know that God calls men and women to law school, even in this job market and economic environment. I urge students seeking his guidance to, first, do their homework to discern their own aptitudes and skills in relation to legal study. Second, I pray that they not think more highly of themselves than they ought as they consider their options. Finally, I hope that they do not wager a large debt load on their confident predictions of their own legal prowess.

Wisdom has built her house. . . .
To him who lacks sense she says,
"Come, eat of my bread and drink of the wine I have mixed.
Leave your simple ways, and live,
and walk in the way of insight." Prov. 9:1, 4-5

A Radical Way to View the Lawyer-Client Relationship

When I spoke at the Seattle CLS attorney/student retreat last month, I was privileged to have some extended conversations with my friend Andy Toles, who is a business lawyer in town and one of the hosts at the retreat. It was encouraging and challenging for me to hear Andy share about God's power and love and how the Lord has shaped his view of law practice over the years as he trusts him on a deeper and deeper level.

At one of the breaks during the retreat, Andy and I recorded one of our conversations, and I've posted it as Volume 14 of the Cross & Gavel Podcasts available on iTunesU. In some ways, the conversation is a simple discussion about what it means to advise clients with integrity. But the more I think about it, the more I believe that Andy is articulating a radical vision of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus in our client relationships. Here is a taste of Andy's vision for the lawyer-client relationship:

It is about seeing the image of God in our clients, recognizing the desire of clients to do the right thing, and understanding that we can actually help them do that . . . . We need to take some ownership of the client's decision. I think it is a cowardly act to say, "here are the three very unattractive approaches you can take to this problem; it's your call." [Instead, we can say], "If I were in your situation, here's what I would do. Let's walk through it together." That is really what my clients are seeking. But it's a risk.

Having practiced as a transactional and estate planning lawyer for 15 years, Andy has some practical experience and stories to demonstrate his vision. One of the most challenging aspects of his vision is the idea that we have the very risky call to "bear the burdens" of clients and that wearing "the mask of God" (Luther's picture for vocation) involves pain.

This all begins with surrender. Near the end of our discussion, Andy raises these questions:

Lord, what haven't I surrendered to you about my law practice? If you were in my chair right now speaking with this client, what would you say? I want to fearlessly go after that question. When they see me, they see Jesus as their lawyer. Wow! Now that's a tripping question. It's a heavy calling. But I think that's what we all wanted when we applied to take the LSAT and headed our way into law school. We wanted to matter. We wanted to do something significant.

Listen in on the whole 23 minutes. Whether you're a law student wondering what it looks like to serve clients or a lawyer looking for a little encouragement, I think you'll be blessed.

Outside Reading

For more ideas apropos to our discussion of natural law and the feast of St. Thomas recently, have a look at Professor David Opderbeck's post over at Jesus Creed. He provides a general overview of the differences between Roman Catholic and Reformed views of the nature of law.

On the importance of personal statements that I discussed here last month, have a look at this practical advice from, of all places, Psychology Today on "the top five mistakes" law school applicants make in their personal statements.

And speaking of law students, Lawyerist suggests that "getting an edge" in the job market involves more intentional "personal branding."

On the trouble in the legal job market, LawShucks and ATL are always good resources. Here's the scoop from January.

Sorry for my lack of insight and commentary . . . . I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Thinking about Law School, Volume 96

I hope readers aren't tiring of the discussions about dissatisfaction and disappointment with the law school experience and life in the law, since I have been writing so much about it lately. But it really seems to be on folks' minds. It's a Very Hot Topic.

I am getting lots of emails asking advice on specific law schools, and, at the same time, reading more and more about the debt and morale crises (I do think they are separate, though often related) among law students and young lawyers. So the economic climate is causing more folks to be interested in attending law school, while at the same time making it less likely that they will be happy with the experience and/or the eventual outcome (i.e., legal jobs they can live with).

I recommended recently that one of the most important things a prospective law student should do is to find out what the practice of law is really like. I stumbled onto an interesting about.com piece last week that made the point better than I did:

The best way to avoid making the wrong career decision is to educate yourself regarding the realities of law practice. Gaining insight into the day-to-day life of working in a particular legal specialty or practice environment is crucial to determining whether the job would be a good fit for you.

Many individuals choose a career in the law for the wrong reasons. Before embarking on the demanding, time-intensive and expensive journey to becoming a lawyer, make certain that you are making a well-informed decision.

The author, Sally Kane, goes on to address five myths about law practice that anyone reading this blog will recognize:

1. Becoming a lawyer is a guaranteed path to financial success.
2. As a lawyer, I can eradicate injustice and affect societal change.
3. I will make a great lawyer because I am good at arguing.
4. Litigators lead a thrilling, high-powered and glamorous life.
5. The work of a lawyer is intellectually challenging.

Be sure to read her take on each of these, but let me add my two-cents'-worth as well.

Number 3 is my favorite, because it is so funny-- and so prevalent. When college and high school students tell me that they want to go to law school, I always ask them why. I'll bet that nearly half say that it is because "people say that I am good at arguing." But I think this sort of craziness disappears for the most part before the law school application process.

At the other end of the spectrum are Kane's myths numbers 2 and 5. One of the reasons that I do what I do with the Christian Legal Society and Regent Law School-- and maybe the primary reason that I wrote Redeeming Law-- is that I believe that ordinary law practice has the potential to be real participation in the redemptive work of God in the world. This is not a non-controversial claim, of course, and it always requires a bit of 'splaining, as they say. I've laid some of that foundation in the book, of course, and here, here, and here, so I won't belabor the basic argument now. However, I do want to explore how far we ought to go toward saying that real lawyers in real law practices don't "eradicate injustice" or effect "societal change."

Kane points out that "litigation has little to do with virtue triumphing over evil and everything to do with advocating your client’s position based upon the facts and applicable law." There is plenty of truth to this, but, on the other hand, the end of litigation is that just claims should prevail, despite the fact that lawyers do in fact argue their own clients' positions. One of the beauties of the system is that moral process, even with zealous advocacy, can lead to "virtue triumphing over evil" in many cases. An injured person can actually be awarded compensation for medical bills and pain. A party who has robbed can see the thief punished. A question about who failed to live up to a bargain can be put to a neutral third party or parties. Evildoers do in fact get punished. Virtuous parties do really get rewarded. Sure, it doesn't happen all the time, and sometimes the system or the lawyers fail, but, at least in theory, working toward a human system that is more and more just and more and more effective every day is a worthwhile participation in something God has established and that he loves.

It is easier still for me to see the fingerprints of God, not in litigation, but in the ordinary practice of lawyers who counsel regular Joes and Josephines every day. For example, helping parents leave money to their children, guiding entrepreneurs as they set up structures that will employ their neighbors or provide worthwhile goods at a reasonable price, and discussing potential responses from a worried spouse in a family dispute, all work toward redemptive "societal change."

More troubling to me is the type of work in which lawyers labor long hours, not in service to clients who need counsel or those whose (arguably) virtuous claims must be vindicated, but in service of other lawyers or large companies, spending all day, for example, tucked away in warehouses doing document review and stamping for one purpose or another. The complexities of modern corporations often make it difficult for lawyers to work out their roles in the larger scheme of a corporate or legal mission.

Nonetheless, even small cogs play a key role in the overall mission of the machine. If a lawyer is convinced of her employer's or client's goals, she may work diligently-- even in the bowels of a cold warehouse-- to serve that goal. And while this is certainly part of the reason that real legal work is not always intellectually challenging, it is often good training in understanding the elements of a well-prepared case or the necessity of mastering details before advising clients.

Which leads us, full circle, to the main point: law practice is often drudgery, pure and simple. For many lawyers it takes an active imagination-- and good theological advice-- to envision the lasting kingdom work, if any, in which they are involved. Even in the drudgery, there is much that lawyers do that contributes to social stability, justice, and positive change.

Prospective lawyers should manage expectations appropriately, understanding the nuts and bolts of the "detail work" that is bread and butter of both law school and law practice. They should be well informed about the amount of grunt work that usually accompanies complex litigation and corporate work. And they should understand the detailed theological task that confronts those lawyers and students hoping to make eternal sense out their regular jobs.

Hope for the Legal Academy & Crawfish Etouffee

Last week I spent a few days hanging with a great group of Christian law professors at the annual Lumen Christi Conference on Christian Legal Thought (in conjunction with the Law Professors' Christian Fellowship) in New Orleans. It was, as always, a blessing to hear panel after of panel of dedicated Christian scholars share their thoughts and scholarship on the relationship of law and theology.

To be honest, it was even more of a blessing to spend time with old friends from this group who challenge and encourage me in my work and faith. It's really hard to beat a good discussion about theology and law, especially if held in the vicinity of a steaming bowl of crawfish etouffee and oysters on the half shell. Mmmm.

My friend Bill Brewbaker, a law professor at the University of Alabama School of Law, even took some time to sit down with me to discuss Christian legal thought for a podcast. It's available over at Cross & Gavel Audio or by searching "Cross and Gavel" on iTunesU. It's a fun discussion.

The small but growing community of Evangelical, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox scholars is a good sign for the academy-- and for the church. This year, there were more younger professors than ever, it seemed, challenging the old fogies, such as myself, to deeper and more faithful work in the academy. The papers ranged from an excellent discussion of the current "expressive association" jurisprudence, to an encouragement to professors to meet with and mentor law students, to a challenge to "go deeper" on issues of private law by application of traditional Catholic social thought.

Professors David Forte and Mark Movsesian kicked off the proceedings with excellent, interesting papers on Islam, Christianity, and Law, each highlighting ways in which Islam's reliance on law is starkly different than Christianity's.

My friend and colleague Lynne Kohm encouraged us to think about issues of gender equality-- and the empowerment of women-- not in traditional feminist terms, which have proved general unhelpful to the overall well-being and happiness of women, but in light of the transforming power of Christ.

Campbell Law School's Kevin Lee presented an interesting paper on the Augustinian lawyer-- which he defined, in part, as one who takes into account the limits of judgment, the effects of the Fall, the dignity of the human person, the fact of both our spirituality and our "embodied-ness," and realizes the "miracle of the quotidian," all in light of the overarching virtue of hope.

It was a day well spent, to say the least.

Plenty more to dig into here, but for now, just some . . . well . . . food . . . for thought.

The Lawyer You Want to Be, the Lawyer You Are, and What People Think About You

Gallup has released its annual poll on the honesty and ethics of professions, and the results, as always, are interesting.

Readers will be shocked-- shocked!-- to learn that lawyers are not among the five professions rated most highly for honesty and ethics. Nurses, pharmacists, doctors, police officers, and engineers (engineers, seriously?) hold down the top five. Bankers, by the way, formerly a contender for the top five, have taken a serious hit for the third year in a row. (This year, only 19% of respondents rated the "honesty and ethical standards" of bankers "high" or "very high," but I digress).

Lawyers stayed out of the bottom five again, this time with some help from the dismal opinions folks apparently now have for Congressmen and Senators (only a 10% "high/very high" rating on honesty and ethics v. a 53% "low/very low.") This year, a mere 13% of those surveyed rated lawyers' honesty and ethics "high or very high." This is pretty discouraging, to put it mildly, and to make matters worse, 40% ranked our honesty and ethics "low or very low," with 45% ranking us "average."

Of course this is troubling and discouraging. But the perceptions haven't really changed much in the last 300 years, and I'm pretty confident, due to the nature of what lawyers do and to the state of the postmodern mind, that it won't be changing much in the foreseeable future.

Ranking lawyers' honesty and ethics is a strange business: most people have a pretty low opinion of the profession, but they appreciate and approve of their own lawyers and their friends who are lawyers. In addition, I wonder where all this low opinion is when it is time to select board members, elect presidents, choose mayors, and appoint CEOs. As Abraham Lincoln put it 160 years ago:

There is a vague popular belief that lawyers are necessarily dishonest. I say vague, because when we consider to what extent confidence and honors are reposed in and conferred upon lawyers by the people, it appears improbable that their impression of dishonesty is very distinct and vivid. Yet the impression is common, almost universal.

Lincoln's eloquent conclusion to these remarks is also worth hearing (plus it reminds me of another interest post to talk about):

Let no young man choosing the law for a calling for a moment yield to the popular belief -- resolve to be honest at all events; and if in your own judgment you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer. Choose some other occupation, rather than one in the choosing of which you do, in advance, consent to be a knave.

Regardless of public opinion about the profession, it is almost always as individual lawyers that we love our neighbors-- or not-- in and through the law. Yet it is individual lawyers, of course, who do and say the things that bring disrepute on our profession. There is something in the nature of the lawyers work-- advocacy, particularly-- that makes folks squeamish.

That's not all, though. There is something in the temperament of the typical lawyer that, when left unchecked, turns monstrous. Or more likely it's a combination of temperament and the standard pragmatic instrumentalism of law school. But whatever it is, it changes-- or at least influences-- us. It's what prompts the Abraham Lincolns of the world to say "if you can't be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer."

And this leads us to a wonderful post over at my new favorite, Lawyerist, entitled "What Kind of Lawyer Do You Really Want to Be?" Here's how it begins:

Have you ever found yourself wondering who you have become?

This happened to one lawyer last year after he found himself pumping his fist with excitement after serving interrogatories to opposing counsel and realizing they would be due right after Christmas. In that moment, he caught himself and realized he had become someone who was excited to ruin another person’s Christmas. He had become someone he never wanted to be.

His days were filled with conflict, and he was paid to make life worse for people, not better. His personality was dominated by anger, his family was suffering, and his practice was suffering too. He began to sabotage his firm because he simply did not believe in what he was doing any longer.

This is not true of most lawyers. But it is true often enough to make it worth addressing. The Lawyerist post has some good suggestions, and I'd be interested in yours.

HT on the Gallup poll: The Brauch Brief.

Law Student Dissatisfaction, Volume 78

The ABA Journal reports today that

A new survey by LexisNexis found that, based on the changing legal marketplace, 21 percent of law students regret attending law school. Thirty-five percent said they don’t feel adequately prepared to succeed in the new marketplace, and 65 percent said law schools don’t teach the practical business skills needed in today’s economy, according to the survey . . . .

Read the post here, ATL's take and the usual snarky comments, and the .PDF summary of the survey posted by Legal Blog Watch, and a panel discussion on the future of the profession hosted by LexisNexis, but reported by LBW.

A few observations:

• Only 100 law students were surveyed. This seems an awfully small sample.
• The level of dissatisfaction does not seem that surprising, given the discontented nature of most lawyers and law students. In fact, if anything, 21% seems low, given the economic outlook and legal job market. Let's face it, it's a bad time to be looking for any kind of job.
• Law school doesn't teach practical business skills, nor should it, beyond some elementary introductions like finance for lawyers, made available to those English majors who (wisely) spent their college years writing poetry, dabbling in philosophy, and arguing about the place of Piers Plowman in the canon.

Update: WSJ Law Blog posts on the panel discussion regarding the future of the profession. Interesting stuff for law schools and law students to consider. Of course, I look forward to the comments as well.

Clients, not Causes?

There's an interesting discussion happening around the "reply-all" hubbub at the LA-based Quin Emanuel law firm.

You can read the short version over at the ABA Journal, or follow the discussion at ATL. The gist is that the firm won a federal court trademark case for the Washington Redskins. In response to the firm-wide email from a partner announcing the victory, an associate "replied to all," questioning the morality of the representation in the first place.

One of the more interesting aspects of the discussion is the matter of a young lawyer stepping in to provide a "moral viewpoint" about a particular representation. Most of the discussion focuses on the manner and timing of both the response and the eventual fallout. But I find this statement, from a Quin partner, most provocative:

"We represent clients, not causes." According to the Journal, the partner said that the firm would have been happy to win the case for the opposing party, had it been hired to do so.

The partner is certainly right about "clients, not causes" in a very important sense. Yet that can't be the whole story, the only response: we can't shut down a conversation about the morality of a particular course of action by stating "that's what we were hired to do."

What role should a young associate-- would it be different for a partner?-- take in providing a moral check on a firm's activities? Fun stuff.

We're talking about it over at Cross & Gavel, too.

200 Accredited Law Schools: Too Many?

The ABA Journal.com reports that some are questioning the need for 200 ABA-accredited law schools. The discussion is in response to the accreditation of two new schools, Elon and Charlotte, which brought the number to 200.

Much of the discussion involves supply and demand issues. According to the Journal:

Law professor William Henderson of Indiana University warns that a law degree does not necessarily translate into high salaries. While top firms paid a median $145,000 in starting salaries last fall, overall the median salary for new lawyers was $62,000, according to figures from NALP.

''I think we have this fundamental disconnect between images of lawyers in the popular media, in the courtroom dispensing justice, where everyone seems prosperous and well paid,'' Henderson told AP. ''The reality is for a lot of people, law school is a route to trying to start your own private practice, and that's a very crowded business right now.''

I'm not sure I buy the "glut of law schools" argument. Recently, however, law schools have fashioned themselves more and more as technical academies for teaching "legal skills" and "techniques" for doing the legal thing. If all we're providing at law school is a vo-tech experience, then we need only enough student factories to fill open slots for legal technicians in the law factories. So maybe there is a glut.

On the other hand, there may be more to legal education than technical proficiency. One law professor put it this way:

[One] who aspires to a thorough acquaintance with legal science, should cultivate the most enlarged ideas of its transcendent dignity, its vital importance, its boundless extent, and infinite variety. As it relates to the conduct of man, it is a moral science of great sublimity; as its object is individual and national happiness, it is, of all others, the most important; as it respects the moral actions of men, and of nations, it is infinitely varied; and as it concerns all his rights and obligations, either derived from, or due to his God, his neighbour, his country, or himself, it must necessarily be a science of vast extent.

David Hoffman, A Course of Legal Study 23 (1846).

There are a handful of law professors in this country who still believe this about the law-- and who have dedicated their careers to exploring the consequences of this sort of belief. We need more law schools-- and there are already several-- that are willing to embrace this exploration for the good of their students and the legal profession.

Christian Legal Journal

The Spring 2008 Christian Legal Journal is out. Published by the Christian Legal Fellowship of Canada, the Journal features my short essay on "The Lawyer's Calling" based on my presentation at their national law student conference.

The issue also features interesting articles on relationships, restorative justice efforts in Ethiopia, and a recent religious liberty case. You'll also find an introduction to the new Christian Legal Fellowship Chaplain, Reid Cooke (who is a wonderful guy).

Read the entire issue here (.pdf).

The Lawyer's Vocation -- Part II

Let's review:

Thinking vocationally means viewing the practice of law as a means to love our neighbors in and through the law. The reality is that God is doing the ministry through us. We are God’s instruments-- limited and sinful instruments, of course, but instruments nonetheless—of mercy, reconciliation, retribution, encouragement, vindication, defense, counsel, or freedom, to, through, or for our clients or law partners (or even legal institutions themselves).

3 Further Points to Ponder

1. If we resist this concept, it is often because we have too narrow a view of the Great Commission or the good news itself. In order to think vocationally, we need to ask: What is the Gospel and what areas of human life and creation does it seek to reach?

In other words, part of our task is to discern Christ’s mission and work in the legal arena. Are there gospel implications in vindicating rights of victims? In the state’s reasonable punishment of criminals? In reconciling parties? In assisting families or groups of individuals to create or shape culture or build wealth? In helping parents leave an inheritance for their children?

2. Being a law student or lawyer, then, involves a diligent seeking for biblical-theological understanding of law and law practice in light of the ministry of the Triune God. What is law? What is the state and what is it for? What is the adversary system and may me be involved and where should we resist involvement? What is the end of criminal punishment? Are there impermissible kinds of punishment? Are corporations helpful tools for carrying out the cultural mandate in Genesis or simply means of avoiding moral responsibility?

Questions like these also lead to other questions, and in our seeking we will begin to find resources and allies throughout the historic and contemporary church. Godly men and women have been thinking through these issues by the power of the Holy Spirit for centuries.

3. For lawyers and law students, this sort of inquiry can be challenging, even for those committed to vocational thinking, because of the biases of American legal education. Law school is not a “hostile” place for Christians, but the foundation of contemporary legal education is generally based on false views about the nature of law and the human person, and, because it is contrary to truth, is hostile to a “Christian” view of the world.

Put simply, a sophisticated historical-biblical-theological approach to law is made difficult by the pragmatism and instrumentalist bent of the American legal academy. Law students, novices at this sort of high level thinking, are at a distinct disadvantage in trying to sort out the truth about torts, contracts, criminal law, and procedural rules. In addition, the conflict in first-order assumptions is made even more difficult to identify in law school, since these presuppositions are just that: presupposed without discussion, acknowledgement or debate.

Culture Shock: Suits and Billable Hours

Apparently, the new generation of young lawyers is having just as much trouble with a professional dress code as with a billable hours requirement.

On the fashion front, last week's WSJ piece Law Without Suits: New Hires Flout Tradition, notes that in today's world of "business casual," it can be "difficult to get young associates to shift gears and don traditional dress when the need arises." While the article is heavy on fashion sense, it highlights problems of both cross-generational expectations in law firms and the role of image and created persona. (See the discussion in the comments section of the WSJ Law Blog, for more fun on this issue).

For the record, while I've severely criticized role-morality and the common practice of donning false "lawyer identities," I have to side with the traditionalists here. If we really desire to love our client-neighbors and employer-neighbors in and through our law practice, sacrificing a little comfort or a little cool is the right thing to do.

On the billable hours front, young lawyers may be catching a break. In keeping with the blaring headline of the August 2007 ABA Journal, THE BILLABLE HOUR MUST DIE!, firms are experimenting with alternatives. The February issue features Taming the Billable Beast, an article that describes three ways that firms are tinkering:

• Do away with first-year associate billing altogether;
• Do away with billable hours completely, moving to fixed-price and flat-fee billing;
• Drastically reduce the billable hour requirement for associates.

The results, according to the article, are positive.

I am agnostic at present regarding the billable hour's consequence to the lawyer seeking to serve/love his or her client. It seems nothing more than a tool to help evaluate value. But, like every other lawyer, I've seen abuses, and I understand its unintended consequences, especially in the large firm culture. It's a topic worth chewing on and discussing.

Vision, Community, and Study

Continuing the discussion I started yesterday about the ABA Journal interview with Michael Melcher, author of The Creative Lawyer: A Practical Guide to Authentic Professional Satisfaction (ABA 2007), I want to make a quick comment on a second question posed to him:

"What can young lawyers specifically do to assure a fulfilling long-term career?"

Leave aside for a second that the question is a bit over the top, and that he should have said, "Nobody can assure a fulfilling career, that's just crazy talk." But he gave a very good answer:

1. Develop a long-term, compelling vision. [snip]
2. Develop robust personal relationships both within law and outside of it, and put in the time to maintain them. [snip]
3. Create a professional learning strategy. [snip]

Vision, community, and learning. I like it!

For the Christian lawyer, this means thinking Christianly about what it means to be a lawyer, and developing a theology of one's law practice. Secondly, it involves living out the lawyer's life within a diverse and robust community, including those that teach and challenge you, those that encourage and nurture you, and those whom you serve in short and long term commitments. Finally, it means a commitment to study the Scriptures and other resources with an eye toward learning from others (both in generation and those in the past) about what a faithful life in the law is all about.

Again, I haven't read Melcher's book, but I like the general direction in which he points.

Career Satisfaction

My American Bar Association electronic newsletter came today, and it linked me to an interesting interview with Michael Melcher, author of The Creative Lawyer: A Practical Guide to Authentic Professional Satisfaction (ABA 2007). I have not read the book, but the interview is very interesting. It touches on a number of themes I see as crucial for the Christian lawyer to address.

Read the interview. Here are my thoughts on the first question: "What unique challenges do lawyers face in finding satisfaction in their careers?"

This is an important question, given the immense dissatisfaction in the profession. His answer is basically four-fold:

1. When lawyers apply their learned and naturally detachment and skepticism to career development, they quash creative solutions;
2. Lawyers fail to develop an identity apart from their work;
3. Lawyers fail to "network" with those outside the profession; and
4. There is "a certain amount of negativity" in the profession.

I think the last one is a bit general, but he is certainly onto something with the "skepticism and detachment" that is bred in law school-- if we don't carefully guard and manage it, it oozes into all that we do, even outside the law. Former Cornell Law dean Roger Cramton argued thirty years ago that this thoroughgoing skepticism is part of the Ordinary Religion of the Law School Classroom, and that its consequences for the profession were severe.

As I point out in Redeeming Law, the question of the lawyer's identity is also a key issue in developing one's calling to the glory of God. Melcher is correct that lawyers often "lack a deep sense of who they are apart from their jobs."

I think this is part of the fragmentation that we see everywhere. Neither family, faith, nor community is relevant to who I am as a lawyer. Therefore, young lawyers who have poured their souls into law school, at the expense of developing a "whole" self, are defined by their work. I would add that this fragmentation and isolation is encouraged by law school, by professional training, and by the modern world that disengages the sacred from the secular, facts from values, and religion from work.

Melcher's third point also rings true from a Christian perspective: Lawyers, like everyone else, are only alive as particular parts in a larger body. Without ministry to and from others in and outside the body of Christ, lawyers are not participants in the vibrant ministry of the body. A fulfilled law practice is one that takes part in a diversity of service within the diverse depths of a community.

Lawyers Who Love Their Jobs?

In a pre-law seminar I've been teaching, we've discussed the undeniable fact that a large number of attorneys regret having ever gone to law school (one in four is a good round number-- from an ABA survey of the 1990s).

The good news is that many lawyers do enjoy their work and find it fulfilling. Have a look at this interesting article from the London Times online discussing lawyers who love their work. This topic is one worth exploring. Why are some lawyers dying to get out of the profession and others are thriving?

HT: ABA Journal

More: From earlier in the week, this article (also from the Times "student law" section) encouraging students to think creatively to find law jobs that will "improve the world."