On February 15, my wife and I welcomed a new baby boy into our family. Samuel Adam is our fourth child, and is a fantastic blessing to us! We are so pleased that he is healthy, seemingly happy and at home with us.
Our two older daughters (6 and 7) are enamoured with him, and are proving to be real helpers with Samuel. Our other son (2) is also very infatuated, and has adjusted well, although it has only been three days.
I know that a lot of you have children, or are planning on having children, and are wondering what it will be like once you hit law school, or once you hit your legal career.
I had two children for my first two years of law school, and our third was born in my third year. I remember being very worried about my schedule in my first year, and feeling guilty a lot when I was studying so hard, working part time, and trying to keep our household in order. But, things smoothed out after about 6 months. I started giving myself permission to take time off from law studies, and to make special time for my girls.
By the time my son was born, I had a very set routine and felt like I could afford to give as much time as necessary towards helping my wife with the new baby, and with my other children.
I heard about a man who was a few years ahead of my who had eight children when he started law school. I think that would be very heavy! A few of my friends had babies, or had wives who had babies while in law school. It worked out. Nobody blamed their babies for bad exams. I had one friend who had two babies while in law school. She shifted to a part-time schedule, and ended up doing really, really well.
Now that I am a lawyer, I have started to feel more guilty about time not spent with my children. But, because I am my own boss, I try to give myself permission to have time off whenever I think my children need more attention. I am going to take most of the next week off - I'll only go in to put out genuine fires - and will ease back to work over the following two weeks. One thing I have learned is that babies are only babies for a very short time.
One last thought - never put off having children for your career. It is never worth it to choose the latter before the former. In other words, work to live. Don't live to work.
Sunday, 18 February 2007
Friday, 16 February 2007
More Information on Exams
In a recent post I set out some thoughts about final exams and what students do well (and not so well) when preparing for and taking them. (See Reflections on Law School Exams, 2/8/2007.) In addition to my two cents, Pitt's Jurist site has an excellent compendium of advice regarding law school final exams. It includes advice from a variety of law profs and other commentators. It's a list worth checking out.
Tuesday, 13 February 2007
Weekly Roundup--Feb. 13, 2007
.jpg)
This roundup is a first in a series of posts. The idea, as the name implies, is to give a quick rundown of interesting materials I have come across in the past week or so. Here goes.
Citing to Wikipedia. On Concurring Opinions, blogger Daniel Solove has a noteworthy piece called "When is it Appropriate to Cite to Wikipedia?" (Note to students: PLEASE READ!!) My favorite part is Brian Leiter's comment on the matter.
Citing to Wikipedia. On Concurring Opinions, blogger Daniel Solove has a noteworthy piece called "When is it Appropriate to Cite to Wikipedia?" (Note to students: PLEASE READ!!) My favorite part is Brian Leiter's comment on the matter.
- Side note: For a link to Wikipedia's Brian Leiter page, click here.
News from the Trenches. The ABA Journal just published the results of an online survey of law firm associates (or at least of people who claimed to be law firm associates). Of nearly 2400 respondents, almost 85% said they would be willing to trade some of their high salaries for lower billable hours. Not surprising. Neither is the general response by partners: get back to work.
They Really Mean it--Get Back to Work. The ABA Journal also reports that salary wars in NYC continue, with first-year associate pay reaching $160,000 in January 2007. So clearly, all associates need to keep their billable hours up to pay for the raise. (Dipping into partner profits to pay for raises is strangely unpopular at big firms.) And as reported in LegalTimes.com, the pay raises are rippling out to other cities as well.
Biting the Hand. . . . New York Law School's Professor Cameron Stracher wrote a recent Op-Ed for WSJ.com, in which he discussed the need for greater clinical education in American law schools. Part of his solution? Clinical rotations like in medical school. Nice idea to consider--although I wonder how useful watching a bunch of corporate attorneys drafting documents would be. Come to think of it, when I have had medical procedures done at teaching hospitals, I have wondered how useful the whole process was to med students in the room. Although since I didn't get charged any extra and since no one got hurt, it was at worst useless, and at best a learning experience.
Watch for more roundups soon.
Friday, 9 February 2007
Improving Law Schools
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching is finalizing a report entitled Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law. The full report will be available in March 2007, but there is a very useful 16 page summary of the report available right now for free. It can be accessed here. Thanks to my colleague Jeff Jackson for bringing the report to my attention.
Previous posts and comments on Law Career Blog pertain to the strengths and shortcomings of American legal education. (See, e.g., Is the Third Year of Law School a Waste of Time and Money? and Is Law School Itself a Waste of Time?) The summary and pending full Carnegie report address this topic too, and the summary makes for very interesting reading. One thematic commonality that runs through it is that "[t]he dramatic results of the first year of law school's emphasis on well-honed skills of legal analysis should be matched by similarly strong skill in serving clients and a solid ethical grounding."
In other words, this study concluded that the first year of law school provides a solid doctrinal underpinning for students, who learn legal analysis--how to "think like a lawyer." This educational experience needs to be matched, however, by similar efforts in the second and third year to educate students not only about doctrine, but also about legal practice. By so doing, law schools could teach students more and prepare them better for the practice of law.
I've posted on the question of whether the third (and even second) year of law school is a waste of time (see the above links; my answer = no), and there has been some excellent commentary from readers on the subject. The Carnegie report suggests, and I tend to agree, that the problem is not that law school is not beneficial or should be shortened, but rather that upper level courses should focus on developing skills that complement the doctrinally-focused skills of the 1L curriculum.
This conclusion and recommendation speaks directly to the common practitioner complaint that new law school grads don't know anything about practicing law. I often think such complainers mean that law school's focus on doctrine is wrong--too much theory, too little skills training--but the Carnegie report does a nice job of emphasizing that you need both.
I encourage anyone interested in the subject to read the Carnegie report summary and post any comments you might have here.
Previous posts and comments on Law Career Blog pertain to the strengths and shortcomings of American legal education. (See, e.g., Is the Third Year of Law School a Waste of Time and Money? and Is Law School Itself a Waste of Time?) The summary and pending full Carnegie report address this topic too, and the summary makes for very interesting reading. One thematic commonality that runs through it is that "[t]he dramatic results of the first year of law school's emphasis on well-honed skills of legal analysis should be matched by similarly strong skill in serving clients and a solid ethical grounding."
In other words, this study concluded that the first year of law school provides a solid doctrinal underpinning for students, who learn legal analysis--how to "think like a lawyer." This educational experience needs to be matched, however, by similar efforts in the second and third year to educate students not only about doctrine, but also about legal practice. By so doing, law schools could teach students more and prepare them better for the practice of law.
I've posted on the question of whether the third (and even second) year of law school is a waste of time (see the above links; my answer = no), and there has been some excellent commentary from readers on the subject. The Carnegie report suggests, and I tend to agree, that the problem is not that law school is not beneficial or should be shortened, but rather that upper level courses should focus on developing skills that complement the doctrinally-focused skills of the 1L curriculum.
This conclusion and recommendation speaks directly to the common practitioner complaint that new law school grads don't know anything about practicing law. I often think such complainers mean that law school's focus on doctrine is wrong--too much theory, too little skills training--but the Carnegie report does a nice job of emphasizing that you need both.
I encourage anyone interested in the subject to read the Carnegie report summary and post any comments you might have here.
Thursday, 8 February 2007
Reflections on Law School Exams
I have had several readers ask for my post-exam thoughts about what students should and should not do on final exams. I have posted on this subject before, but since grades come out every semester it's worth writing about again. Hopefully I can shed some new light on the subject, at least from my perspective as a law exam grader. My previous posts on law school exams, by the way, are as follows.So what else can I say? The views I expressed in my previous posts really have not changed, but here are some supplemental thoughts.
1. Know Your Audience, and Remember the Purpose of an Exam. For law school exams, your audience is your professor--someone who knows the subject better than you, but who nonetheless wants you to demonstrate your knowledge of the subject. You are not talking down to your audience if you demonstrate on the exam that you know, say, the basics of manifestation of mutual assent. If you don't explain in summary fashion what the law is, you risk a lower score.
2. Corollary to #1: Law School Exams Grade Performance, not Just Knowledge. On a law school exam--at least an essay exam--you are presented with a fact pattern. Your task is to identify what doctrinal rules are relevant and then apply them. Knowing the law is necessary for a good grade (you can't apply the law if you don't understand it), but it is not sufficient.
3. Another Corollary to #1: To Perform Better on Exams, Take Some Practice Exams. Let's say you got a lower grade than you wanted. Does that mean you didn't know the law? No, it means you did not perform on that particular exam, most likely by not applying the law as well as you might have. For future exams, practice applying the law. Get together with class mates you trust, draft sample exam questions for each other, and practice answering them. It is my opinion that the process of creating your own sample exams can be a highly educational process, because it forces you to really think about how the various legal rules and principles interact. Also try looking on the web for sample exams--although the casebooks used and the topics covered by those other professors will affect the usefulness of those exams.
Note: For anyone in my current Contracts class, I will be handing out some sample exams later in the semester. But I encourage you to craft your own sample questions too.
4. Organize Your Exam Answers. I saw a lot of exam answers this year that were not well-organized. I sympathize entirely with the urge to simply start writing--after all, there's not much time in a three-hour exam. But if you don't (a) think through how you want to organize your answer (which means you need to outline your answer before you start writing), and then (b) follow that template, you are bound to miss issues or at least give short shrift to some issues.
Here's the point: on average, you will score higher on an exam if you hit all (or at least most) of the issues adequately--as opposed to really nailing some and missing or underexploring others. If you outline that does leave you less time to write, but that is MORE than offset by the fact that you will spend less time spinning your wheels or restating something you have already covered.
5. Corollary to #4: Exam Length is not Always Related to Exam Score. There are 3 general lengths of exam answers: short, medium, and long. That sounds all too obvious, but it's worth pointing out, in order to highlight the relationship between exam answer length and exam answer score.
In my experience, writing less than around 1700 words on a 3 hour essay exam means that you run significant risk of not having enough words to discuss and analyze difficult legal rules and principles. So there is a strong corellation between short answers and lower exam scores.
Medium answers are, in my experience, anything between 2000 and 2700 words. (I guess that means 1700-2000 is a gray zone.) A 2000 word answer can be competent, but in the "medium" category longer answers generally translate into better scores.
Interestingly, however, for long answers--generally those above 3000 words--there is a very weak correlation between word count and score. And this gets me back to my point about organization. A well organized answer can cover more ground in fewer words than a long (but poorly organized) answer.
This means that sacrificing some length at the alter of organization is a wise trade-off.
6. Another Corollary to #4: Organizing Your Answer Helps Demonstrate to the Professor That You Know What You are Doing. The ability to identify relevant issues and then discuss them in organized fashion is a necessary skill for the practice of law. That's what you do in memos to clients, and that's what you do in briefs or other submissions to a court. Whenever I read a well organized answer, the message I get is "this person knows what s/he is doing." In contrast, a disorganized answer that flails about makes it difficult or impossible for me to tell whether the person knew the law, or simply got portions of the exam right by accident--and the result is a lower grade.
7. Yet Another Corollary to #4: Write an introduction for your answer. I may differ from other law profs on this point, but I see very little downside to writing a very brief introductory paragraph for your essay exam answer. It takes about 5 minutes--and all you do is concisely state what the issues raised in the question are and what you will be discussing in your answer. And then you follow that format throughout your answer.
This is another way to demonstrate to the prof that you know what you are doing. It also makes the exam easier to read, because the prof knows what's coming later in the answer. It is always easier to read something--an essay, magazine article, memo, anything--if the author first gives a roadmap. So even if an introduction does not garner you any direct points, it helps the grader follow what you are doing, and that should at least indirectly improve your score. (It's also a way to force yourself to be organized in your answer.) And as I said, even if it does not help, it really does not hurt much, since it only takes a few minutes to write an introduction.
8. Do not Try to be Clever or Original. Points for style and eloquence are nice, but generally you are better off focusing on getting the substance of your answer down, instead of being overly concerned with phraseology. So eschew grandioloquent prose for simple, straightforward language.
Of course you will use use legal terminology (e.g., tortfeasor, party-in-breach, etc.) to demonstrate your knowledge (and ability to apply) the law. Just don't get flowery.
* * * *
Those are just some of my thoughts. Any comments?
Monday, 5 February 2007
Should Lawyers be called "Doctor"
I was on www.lawstudents.ca recently, and followed a thread on the question, "Should Lawyers be called 'Doctor'." I thought it was an amusing thread, with lots of witty posts. It got me thinking about the place of lawyers in Canadian society. I'll share a few of my thoughts.
First, lawyers are not doctors, in the classical sense of the word. Although they often help others, they are a different professional subset than doctors. By doctors, I mean both medical doctors and academic doctors.
To be a lawyer is to be a professional. It is to be an officer of the court, an attorney (A person to acts on behalf of another). In fact, in the US, most lawyers are called Attorney, which is a lot better than Lawyer, in my opinion. It is more descriptive of what a lawyer does. Lawyer says that you know something about the law. Attorney says that you know what to do with that law - you know how to serve.
Countering that thought is the fact that so many lawyers are very self-serving. Corporate lawyers come to mind immediately, along with Personal Injury lawyers. However, many doctors are quite self-serving as well. I read recently about the increasing number of doctors who are turning to plastic surgery rather than a general practice, because of the easy money. I see many doctors driving very fancy cars to very fancy houses. But, not all doctors, or lawyers, are like this.
I am amazed that someone who has graduated medical school is called "doctor" immediately, even though they have not practiced medicine for one moment. Law graduates in Canada have to take on the name "Student-at-law" for one year after graduation. Only when they pass bar admission requirements can they call themselves "Lawyer."
Some of the posts at www.lawstudents.ca argued that the academic requirements are similar for lawyers, compared to medical doctors or academic PhD's. On this point, I would have to concur. Law school, which usually follows a four-year undergraduate degree, is a long haul. The timeline is similar to the medical student. In some rare cases, you can achieve a PhD in 7 to 8 years of academia, but I think it is usually closer to 10 to 12 years before you can call yourself "doctor".
Lawyers hold a special status in Canadian society. They are often well respected, although often criticized and berated. There are many jokes about the shark-like quality of lawyers. But, at the same time, our citizens choose to elect lawyers as their leaders time and time again.
Myself, I don't really need a special title to do my work. It is enough to say that I am a lawyer. I didn't go to school to become a doctor. Perhaps one day, but that would be another career altogether.
I do want to exchange my LL.B. for a J.D., because others in Canada have that designation now for the same amount of education that I have received. Fair is fair. However, it should be clear to everyone, lawyer and non-lawyer alike, that a Juris Doctorate does not mean that you can call yourself "doctor" or that you can equate your degree to that of a medical doctor or a PhD. They are different paths, mean different things. It is OK to be different. It's not OK to say you are better than another who has dedicated their life to a career, or to a cause.
That's all I have to say on that for now.
First, lawyers are not doctors, in the classical sense of the word. Although they often help others, they are a different professional subset than doctors. By doctors, I mean both medical doctors and academic doctors.
To be a lawyer is to be a professional. It is to be an officer of the court, an attorney (A person to acts on behalf of another). In fact, in the US, most lawyers are called Attorney, which is a lot better than Lawyer, in my opinion. It is more descriptive of what a lawyer does. Lawyer says that you know something about the law. Attorney says that you know what to do with that law - you know how to serve.
Countering that thought is the fact that so many lawyers are very self-serving. Corporate lawyers come to mind immediately, along with Personal Injury lawyers. However, many doctors are quite self-serving as well. I read recently about the increasing number of doctors who are turning to plastic surgery rather than a general practice, because of the easy money. I see many doctors driving very fancy cars to very fancy houses. But, not all doctors, or lawyers, are like this.
I am amazed that someone who has graduated medical school is called "doctor" immediately, even though they have not practiced medicine for one moment. Law graduates in Canada have to take on the name "Student-at-law" for one year after graduation. Only when they pass bar admission requirements can they call themselves "Lawyer."
Some of the posts at www.lawstudents.ca argued that the academic requirements are similar for lawyers, compared to medical doctors or academic PhD's. On this point, I would have to concur. Law school, which usually follows a four-year undergraduate degree, is a long haul. The timeline is similar to the medical student. In some rare cases, you can achieve a PhD in 7 to 8 years of academia, but I think it is usually closer to 10 to 12 years before you can call yourself "doctor".
Lawyers hold a special status in Canadian society. They are often well respected, although often criticized and berated. There are many jokes about the shark-like quality of lawyers. But, at the same time, our citizens choose to elect lawyers as their leaders time and time again.
Myself, I don't really need a special title to do my work. It is enough to say that I am a lawyer. I didn't go to school to become a doctor. Perhaps one day, but that would be another career altogether.
I do want to exchange my LL.B. for a J.D., because others in Canada have that designation now for the same amount of education that I have received. Fair is fair. However, it should be clear to everyone, lawyer and non-lawyer alike, that a Juris Doctorate does not mean that you can call yourself "doctor" or that you can equate your degree to that of a medical doctor or a PhD. They are different paths, mean different things. It is OK to be different. It's not OK to say you are better than another who has dedicated their life to a career, or to a cause.
That's all I have to say on that for now.
Thursday, 1 February 2007
You've Made it into Law School - Congratulations!
I have received numerous emails from readers of my book and my blogs (Law Eh? and Canadian Law School) recently. Many of you have sent me a note to update me on your success in being accepted into one of Canada's law schools.
CONGRATULATIONS to all of you. It's fantastic news! Law school is tough to get into. Canadian law schools are tough to get into. You have all worked so hard towards this dream, and now it is a reality!
I really appreciate the kind comments about how the book and the blogs have helped you to prepare - for the LSAT, the Application Process, 1L and beyond.
Many of you have been asking lots of anticipatory questions about law school, and even more questions about life after law school. Keep the questions coming, and if it's appropriate, I will post the answers on the blogs (with your permission, of course).
For those of you who have not had success so far this year, don't give up. Many law schools put out second and third calls once they start receiving rejections from students who have decided to go to law school elsewhere. Don't give up hope yet, Amigos.
And, if you don't get in this year, don't despair. Try again next year. Write the LSAT again. If you read my book, you'll read about my abysmal first attempt at the LSAT, and how I turned it all around. I didn't give up, and now I am partner in my own law firm. A short 5 years from deciding that I wanted to be a lawyer! And I'm loving it! Never give up.
CONGRATULATIONS to all of you. It's fantastic news! Law school is tough to get into. Canadian law schools are tough to get into. You have all worked so hard towards this dream, and now it is a reality!
I really appreciate the kind comments about how the book and the blogs have helped you to prepare - for the LSAT, the Application Process, 1L and beyond.
Many of you have been asking lots of anticipatory questions about law school, and even more questions about life after law school. Keep the questions coming, and if it's appropriate, I will post the answers on the blogs (with your permission, of course).
For those of you who have not had success so far this year, don't give up. Many law schools put out second and third calls once they start receiving rejections from students who have decided to go to law school elsewhere. Don't give up hope yet, Amigos.
And, if you don't get in this year, don't despair. Try again next year. Write the LSAT again. If you read my book, you'll read about my abysmal first attempt at the LSAT, and how I turned it all around. I didn't give up, and now I am partner in my own law firm. A short 5 years from deciding that I wanted to be a lawyer! And I'm loving it! Never give up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg){kind=link}