Admissions: The LSAT

I thought I would share a few thoughts today about the LSAT. Most of you who are applying for law school this year will have taken the LSAT, as law school application deadlines are on Nov 1, Jan 15, or Feb 1. However, U of New Brunswick is Mar 1 and U of Moncton is Apr 30, so the upcoming LSAT test on Feb 12, 2006, and the following information may apply to you. For those of you thinking of applying in 2006/2007, you might also find the following helpful.

According to informal surveys, most people write the LSAT more than once. Some say that rewriting will not significantly improve your score. In my case however, my second try resulted in a marked improvement. After my first poor showing, I then took a personal inventory of how I had prepared the first time and came up with a methodology that I was sure worked for me. I have heard this same strategy for others who have had to write the LSAT more than once. I found strategies that allowed me to more fully comprehend the games section of the LSAT, which brought my scores up considerably on the practice exams, which I dedicated myself to the second time around.

Many prospective law students feel more confident going into the LSAT having taken a preparatory course. Kaplan and The Princeton Review are probably the best known. In Canada, Oxford Seminars puts on courses throughout the country. Numerous private companies in each city or university in Canada put on courses as well. It is a good idea to visit the local law school to look at the bulletin boards where you will be sure to find advertisements for numerous LSAT prep courses. You can also find advertisements on other bulletin boards in undergraduate university buildings. It is helpful to ask around – ask classmates or friends that you know who have written the LSAT or taken a prep course to see what they think about the various prep courses offered in your area.

There are many LSAT prep courses, books and CD-ROMs that may help you gain an edge over other LSAT test writers. However, everybody will find the best success through gaining a strategy of his or her own. This comes through practice, pondering and practicing again. Learn from your mistakes. Come up with short cuts and strategies that work for you. Increase your mental endurance through more regular, prolonged study sessions and repeated mock LSAT test writing situations.

As I mentioned, I wrote the LSAT twice. This is common. It is an overwhelming experience the first time round, and many people are unprepared, especially in terms of the mental and physical strain and the endurance required. Alternatively, perhaps nerves got in the way. Do not be too embarrassed if you find that you need to write more than once. If you have decided that law is your dream, do not let this obstacle get in your way. Do not give up that easily. Under normal circumstances, you can take the LSAT up to 3 times in any two-year period. This applies even if you cancel your score or if it is not reported otherwise. You may hear from different authorities that LSAT scores do not differ greatly under normal circumstances from one test to another. You can find more detailed information on this at http://cachewww.lsac.org/pdfs/2004-2005/registration-book-ca-2004b.pdf (LSAT Registration & Information – Canadian Law School). This document includes a great matrix of differences between multiple test attempts. Do not be thrown off by this information. It is a matrix of averages. Not everyone will fall within his or her averages. If you feel that you might do better if better prepared, both mentally and physically, it is definitely worth trying the LSAT more than once.

As with your GPA, your LSAT score should be a private matter. Some students like to boast about their LSAT score. However, the LSAT is not always indicative of your real potential in Law School. There are so many other factors that come into play, such as ability to handle stress, social ability, study habits, whether some or numerous areas of law catch your fancy, your relationships with other law students and law professors, and so on.

Sharing your LSAT score is not necessary. It does not help anybody. It can make people feel bad about themselves, or cause them to categorize you. Unless someone shares their score with you in a non-hostile, non-threatening manner and in an atmosphere that you are comfortable with, I would suggest that you tuck your score sheet in a locked file cabinet and forget about it.

If you found this post useful, you may be interested in the book I wrote on the Canadian Law School experience. It's also available at Chapters/Indigo. Thank you to those who have purchased the book. I hope that you have found it useful in your preparation for law school and, if applicable right now, in helping you to land a great legal job.

Political Apathy Begone

Check out Liam McHugh-Russell and what he's doing to fight political apathy amongst youth and/or university students. I applaud him for stepping outside of the often indifferent atmosphere of law school to make a statement. Whether he is successful in winning over anyone over the age of 25 remains to be seen, especially given his competition in U of T visiting professor Michael Ignatieff as the Liberal candidate in Liam's riding.

Is Law School Itself a Waste of Time?

On Thursday 1/5/06 I submitted a post called Is the Third Year of Law School a Waste of Time and Money? Over on Sports Law Blog my colleague, Professor Michael McCann, had a similar post, which I recommend you check out as well.

In my post, I suggested that adding a fourth year of law school might be a good idea. (Not a popular idea, I know.) The comments I received were so good that I felt an additional post on the matter was in order. Check them out. Some key premises of the comments were these: why do we even need law schools at all? Aren't they just protectionist barriers to entry? Wouldn't society be better served if we allowed more people to practice law, and thus drive the cost down?

These are serious and very valid questions, and they deserve serious thought.

Much of the frustration with modern law schools does arise from the fact that they have a monopoly on entry into the law profession. The justification for this is that society benefits if we require lawyers to go through a demanding course of instruction before representing people in real life. Now, I do think there is some merit to that. But it is also true, as with any monopoly, that you get inefficiencies. Why is law school 3 years long when some of our nation’s greatest lawyers, such as Abraham Lincoln and John Marshall, only received very limited instruction in the law? Why don’t law schools have opportunities for distance learning? Good questions indeed.

Let me concede that there are some people out there who would make excellent lawyers without ever going to law school. There are also probably some people out there who would make excellent doctors without going to medical school—but I don’t want them operating on me. Such superstars are the exception, not the rule. I myself benefited enormously from law school—from the culture of law it instilled in me, from the debates, from the opportunity to learn about the law in depth from both a modern, practical point of view and from a more historical or jurisprudential one. You simply do not get that by taking the bar. Or reading a book.

But what about distance learning? (Again, check out the comments to my previous post.) Should we do that? Based on my experience as a law professor, I believe there is enormous benefit to live, in-class discussion. Distance learning hinders that. But again, it is a matter of balance. Many law schools have night divisions that do not interact with the day divisions—and this does not bother those schools! So if we are willing to compromise this dynamic in one aspect, I think we should compromise it in another and allow distance learning, under certain conditions. In fact, I would not be surprised to see this happen in the next 5 years. After all, law schools are supposed to be engaged in public service. And enabling qualified people to obtain JDs and pass the bar is public service.

But back to the main point: should there even be law schools? Like any institutions, law schools are not perfect. But it is my experience in teaching—and in practice—that they are necessary, despite their faults. My reasoning comes down to this. American high schools should be teaching students to write, research and think. Yet many high school graduates do a poor job of all three, in opinion. And many college graduates, for that matter. These are not stupid people, mind you. To the contrary, many are extremely bright. They just haven’t been taught properly. We live in a society that values action over reflection, success over education, and it shows in our educational system.

So what that means is that law schools, for better or worse, are sometimes the last bastions of formal education for people before they become lawyers. That is a critically important role to play. And that, in a nutshell, is why I gave up my life of comparative wealth and luxury in private practice for a life in teaching in a place far away from friends and family.

Any other comments on this are welcome. The proper role of law schools is one of the most difficult, and most important, questions that law schools face. And we should be working hard to craft the best answer possible and make sure that law schools are not just barriers to entry. That means the more dialogue, the better.

What the West Virginia Sago Miners Can Teach Us

I have been thinking a lot this week about the disaster at the Sago Mine in Tallmansville, West Virginia. I grew in West Virginia. My grandfather was a coal company doctor for a time, and my wife's grandfather worked in the mines. So this tragedy has weighed heavily on my mind.

Let's think about what happened. There is a lot of talk and fingerpointing about the mining company and its numerous safety violations. And maybe the company's actions did contribute to the accident, although that is not yet determined. If the company did contribute to the accident, I hope it pays through the nose for it.

But what about the miners?

There they were, trapped underground, knowing they might well die, and what did they do? Some of them left notes to comfort their families. That is truly remarkable. They thought first and foremost about those they were leaving behind. Even as they faced the end of their lives, they put others before themselves.

I have spent my professional career in the white collar world of law firms and law schools--about as far from a life in the mines as you can get. And yet there is a commonality here. As a professor, I strive to instill my students with a sense of mission and meaning about their careers. Lawyers are in a service profession, so serve. Put other people before yourself.

The Sago miners bring that message home in spades. The notes they left were magnificent acts of courage and compassion that move me profoundly. And they teach us all a good lesson--not about how to die, but rather about how to live.

Is the Third Year of Law School a Waste of Time and Money?

Does the third year of law school add all that much? A recent post by Denise Howell on Between Lawyers says this:

The 2005 Annual Report from the Law School Survey of Student Engagement, which "gives schools an idea of how well students are learning and what they put into and get out of their law school experience" (and is the basis for the article Dennis [Kennedy] linked earlier), is here. (Via Genie Tyburskie) "[T]hird-year students look similar to first- and second-year students in areas such as critical thinking, effective writing, and work-related knowledge or skills." If you were to survey practicing lawyers, you'd find resounding agreement on two points: very little about law school prepared them for for the bar exam, and even less prepared them for the actual practice of law. So why not just axe the third year? (My response: 'cause when else for the ensuing 40-odd years do former law students get to goof off?)

Check out her post here. There are some very good links and some comments, including one by yours truly. In particular, look at Dennis Kennedy's related post on the same site.

Denise's answer is appropriately tongue in cheek. But is the unstated suggestion of this dialogue that a 2-year law school would suffice? Yes, I think it is. Is that suggestion right? Not to me.

In a field that is literally splintering and hyper-specializing, the third year of law school allows people to take courses in specific areas. If I were the U.S. Law School Czar, I would think very hard about actually adding a FOURTH year. (Of course, I might feel differently if I had not already graduated.)

What is the number one complaint practitioners have about law schools? That "law schools don't prepare students for the practice of law." If I had a dime for every time I've heard that one I'd be rich and living on a beach somewhere.

So what is the answer to that problem? Easy: to teach people not just how to think like lawyers, but also how to act like lawyers.

The question really boils down to this: what are law schools supposed to be? Traditional graduate schools, or trade schools? Should they focus on theory and doctrine? Or on practical instruction, such as how to write and file a motion, maintain files, bring in a new client, etc.? The easy (and right) answer is "both of the above." Law schools are a hybrid institution. You learn the theories underlying a rich discipline, but you also really should be learning the key basics and tricks of the trade. And you can't do that in two years. We don't really do it well enough in three.

So, while law schools are not just supposed to train technical monkeys, they do a great disservice if they do not give their graduates the rudimentary practice skills to succeed. And that's where the third year of law school should come in. (And my dream fourth year, which might be part internship with a firm, as law schools in some countries like Canada do it).

The point is that if students have to learn practical skills solely on the job, that has enormously negative effects. First, it undercuts the validity of law schools and makes them little more than a 3-year barrier to entry to the profession. And second, it hurts the graduates. And aren't they the ones we are supposed to be serving in the first place?

The Dangers of Blogging (and e-mails, and letters, and talking, and . . .)

There was a good article in the Baltimore Sun recently entitled "Caution: Blogging Can Get You Fired" that re-appeared a few days later in my local Mississippi paper, the Clarion-Ledger. In the article, reporter Amy Rosewater discusses in a cogent and well-organized fashion how blogging can get an employee in trouble. Say bad things about your employer, the article says, and you can be in big trouble. Even fired. That's good advice, especially for people like lawyers who often work for firms or companies that value privacy and don't take well to internal dissent.

That being said, this piece bothers me. Every time I read articles like this I think, "Are people really that dense?" (The bloggers, that is. Not Rosewater.)

I mean, come on, folks! If you post under your real name (or an easily unmasked nom de plume), what's the difference between that and sending an e-mail? Or a letter? Or talking behind people's backs and being overhead?

The answer: there is no difference in kind, only a difference in degree. A furtive conversation at work is likely to be overhead by only a few people, whereas a blog has a potential audience of millions. Or billions, at least theoretically. But the basic fact remains: they are your words, you said them, and now they are out there. The way to keep something private is to not tell others, and that should be obvious.

So honestly, I just don't understand. Or maybe I do. Maybe people think the medium involved makes a difference, even though that makes no sense. Maybe no one's mama (or daddy--let's be politically correct) ever says anymore, "If you can't say something nice, then don't say/write/e-mail/text message/blog anything at all."

So here are my workplace rules of thumb for communicating your thoughts. I developed these tried and true methods under fire in the practice of law, and I think they work. And they help avoid a lot of stress and unnecessary controversy.

Rule #1: If you say it, you say it. It does not matter if it is in a meeting, letter, e-mail, telephone conversation, or in a blog or other forum. All discretion and no witty banter makes Jack a dull boy, but Jack just might make partner.

Rule #2: When you break rule #1, admit it to yourself and try again. It's like giving up smoking--you'll have to try several times. And then still mess up. Keep at it.

Rule #3: E-mails = Hardcopy letters. There's a lot of commentary out there about how impersonal e-mail is and how easily it is misconstrued. Is that because e-mail fonts are impersonal or somehow rude? No, it's because people don't think about what they say before they click send. So, draft and revise your important e-mails, just like you do for hardcopy letters. They are called e-mail--ELECTRONIC MAIL--for a reason.

Rule #4: Blogs = Hardcopy letters. The only difference is you are writing to the world. I do not mean you should be boring all the time. Just make sure that whatever you say in your blog, you don't mind anyone reading it. And work to avoid possible misunderstandings. For example, take a look at the top of this post. I took pains to emphasize that I most certainly am not taking the reporter who wrote this article to task. She wrote a good article.

Rule #5: Voicemail messages = Hardcopy letters. You see the pattern. If you have to leave a message and it's a delicate one, then perhaps you shouldn't leave it at all. Just ask the person to call back. But if you absolutely must leave a delicate message, perhaps you should practice a few times first. After all, they are your words.

Rule #6: If you get caught violating any of these rules, standing your ground is better than backing and filling. I'm serious about this. Let's suppose you've been caught redhanded in the hall complaining about a partner behind his back, and the partner walks up and taps you on the shoulder. Or passes by in the hall. What do you do? If he heard, own up to it and explain. You're already in trouble, so don't be a coward too. Show some integrity. Maybe something good will come out of it--like the partner actually addressing your gripe. And certainly, the next time you will think twice before opening your trap in a non-secure environment.

A New Year's Resolution for Lawyers

The New Year's holiday is always a time for reflection and positive forward thinking. Forget about what went wrong in the past; what are we going to do right in the coming year?

With that sentiment in mind, let me say some positive words about law firms. It's easy to criticize law firms--their culture, attitudes, lack of training and mentoring, and so on. But this is not a blog devoted to bashing law firms. While there are lawyers out there who seem to be the lost siblings of Dilbert's boss, you get that in all professions.

No, my point is that practicing law can be a magnificent career path. I mean it. Truly exciting and highly rewarding careers are out there, and in plenty. Sometimes in practice I would come home and tell my wife, "I had the most exciting day. I love my job!" And that was a desk job!

So why can practicing law in a firm be grand? Here are some reasons:

1. You are surrounded by smart people. For every Dilbert boss, there are a dozen people who are bright, ambitious, and dedicated.

2. You can make a difference. Whether you help the homeless or work for corporations, you are helping someone. Don't forget that helping a corporation helps it stay profitable--which benefits the economy and protects (at least some) employees' jobs.

3. You get to think for a living. This one is self-explanatory.

4. You get to learn for a living. For me this was an enormous benefit of practicing law (and being a law professor, for that matter). No matter what kind of law you practice, you get to meet new people, learn about new businesses, and stay current with developments in the law.

5. You have the opportunity to mentor younger attorneys and guide their careers. It is on this last point that too many firms stumble--often badly. The daily pressures and emergencies of law practice get in the way of the more important goal.

4 out of 5 isn't bad--but 5 out of 5 is far better.

So for the new year, if you are a partner or senior associate in a law firm, I challenge you to make practicing Point #5 one of your New Year's resolutions. Even if no one else in your firm is doing it.

And if you are a junior associate, make it your resolution to honor this point too when you have the chance. Even if no one else in your firm is doing it.

In fact, if no one else is doing it that is a prime opportunity for you to make your mark. The lawyers you mentor will appreciate it and be loyal to you for it. And who knows? You just may be a catalyst for change and help your firm reach its magnificent potential. I personally have seen this happen in practice, and I can attest to the enormous difference it makes.

So Happy New Year, happy practicing, and happy mentoring!