17 ms·

How to Be a Lawyer Without Going to Law School

155 points by baazaar 11y ago

ddingus 11y ago
I had a great experience with one of these types. He worked bagging groceries while perusing his apprenticeship and passed the bar with high marks. I asked him why, and he said he loves the law and did not want to be as financially committed as so many were. He also decided to laser focus on a couple of common aspects of law and absolutely nail them. Often, when I'm going to use a professional of some sort, I will ask them about their journey to practice whatever it is they do. Many have a quick statement you can tell they have prepped to dispense with it all efficiently. No worries, I value my time too. Of course, many ask because they feel they should. But, some ask out of a more genuine interest, and that is me. This guy told me all about his journey, and I could feel it. He is doing something he feels something for and he wants to do it well. Love it. I know exactly who I am dealing with and what to expect. I can trust the intent too, which is important. Money is nice, but you can't buy well directed passion. In my experience, professionals who can pick up on that interest and have a real dialog are some of the best to work with. Not that the others aren't. It is just easier to figure someone out and work well, trust and value them when they can or will share on a more real, basic level. To me, it seems there should be a path for people like this. They often know what they want and they feel what they need to in order to honor whatever it is. Filtering that out is what organizations like the ABA, AMA, etc... do. And we need them to do that for us too. No argument. But, doing that does conflict with maximizing self directed people, and I get it. They paid, and shouldn't everyone who is serious? No, frankly. And there is the rub. Software is one area where these people often and frequently do shine bright. Arguably, we are better for that. Not everyone can or will pay. To me, having some intrinsic drive is worth a lot.
lern_too_spel 11y ago
It's a bit strange to compare costs against a T14 law school.
- pdshrader 11y ago
  The breakdown between "Tuition" and "Professional Degree Tuition" is strange (it's a Berkeley Law breakdown), but those costs together are pretty accurate for any law school, T14 or not. Quite a few law schools have even higher tuition.
cdbattags 11y ago
Mike Ross?
geebee 11y ago
I can see why this topic is interesting to people on Hacker News, because "self-study" is not just an option in software development, it's really the only way. Yeah, a lot of us have CS degrees or degrees in related fields, but in the end, you have to read, absorb, prototype, evaluate, adopt, or reject thousands of pages of dense material every year to stay current. I really do think that software developers may be unusually well prepared to study law this way, because developers really are accustomed to massive amounts of self-directed learning.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  > Yeah, a lot of us have CS degrees or degrees in related fields, but in the end, you have to read, absorb, prototype, evaluate, adopt, or reject thousands of pages of dense material every year to stay current So do most practitioners in careers that are typically associated with or require a university degree: actuaries, accountants, engineers, lawyers, doctors, teachers, etc. all have to stay current with their respective fields and do so primarily through self-study. Of course there exist people in all of those careers who don't. But the same is true in software.
  - geebee 11y ago
    I agree. The main difference is that all of the fields you've listed already have a formalized study and exam path. Software is one of the few knowledge based fields that you can enter purely on self-study at the highest level (I'm not sure about actuaries, if you studied math on your own, could you enter the actuarial field? Not sure about this one). As a result, I wonder if maybe software developers are a little more inclined, as a "profession", toward paths that are less formalized.
    - msandford 11y ago
      > (I'm not sure about actuaries, if you studied math on your own, could you enter the actuarial field? Not sure about this one). Yes, anyone can take the exams, there are a handful. And if you pass them all nobody really cares about your degree. But from what I gather you'd better be pretty sharp to pull it off.
pmorici 11y ago
I looked into doing this a few years back after I disputed a bunch of abusive tickets in federal court and won. Ultimately I didn't live in one of the 4 states that allows apprenticing and I wasn't serious enough about it to want to move to one of them that did. It's too bad this isn't an option everywhere because I would totally be a lawyer on a volunteer basis but there is no way I would want to do it as a profession. Part of me also wonders if I could ever be as interested and driven to solve another person's legal problems that weren't my own.
- tracker1 11y ago
  Depending on where you live, you could petition for a ballot initiative to ammend your state's law. In Arizona it's relatively easy to do so... now, once commercial interests are opposed to you and willing to throw money at something, actually getting it to pass from voters is a different story. I've considered doing the same... though also don't live in a state where it's an option. Though I happen to live in a state where self-driven voter referendum has a lot of legal power.
unimpressive 11y ago
>While bar exam pass rates in other states range from 18% to 33%, Washington state has a surprisingly high pass rate, at 56%. Washington’s state bar, more than any other state’s, provides extensive support for students who choose to apprentice, including a volunteer network who sets study standards and monitor progress. Last year, these resources resulted in 67% of Washington apprentices passing the bar exam, nearly as high as those who graduated from ABA-accredited schools. So where is the support network for people trying to learn our field in depth through self study? As nice as HN/Reddit/etc all are, they're not really a replacement for a study in the rigorous theory foundations that let you break away from having your career defined by one transient technology after another.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  Most of those lawyers won't get jobs, and if they do get jobs they won't be well paid. There's a glut of lawyers at the moment, and it's not at all the easy money outsiders think it is. Law has the usual power curve for income and prestige - a relatively small number of partners, mostly from privileged and connected backgrounds, make most of the money and get most of the opportunities. A few potential stars get useful mentoring. But there's a huge army of law workers who only really only do crappy clerical work (boilerplate wills, property sales, debt chasing, and such) and handle petty criminal cases. IME a lot of these lawyers aren't that good. They get results because the public are intimidated by lawyers, not because they're brilliant at their jobs. It's not hard to self-study procedure and case law if you're going up against them, and give yourself a better than average chance of winning. I think dev culture is more open. If you want to talk to the creator of <some cool thing> you often can. If it's a FOSS project, you can get involved and add it to your resume. There are IRC channels and blogs and mailing lists and many other options. This is not to be confused with startup culture, which is a different thing, and does seem to suffer from social exclusion. But if you're more interested in cranking out code than feeding money to your pet unicorn, dev culture really does seem to be relatively open and meritocratic.
- vinceguidry 11y ago
  > a study in the rigorous theory foundations that let you break away from having your career defined by one transient technology after another. There's a much easier way to accomplish that shift. Start a business, perhaps SaaS or a software product. Alternatively you could just stop hopping jobs every few years.
ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
Sure, the apprenticeship path has much less non dischargeable debt, but you still need to find a job to make ends meat, or hope that the lawyer you're apprenticing with pays you a living wage. I've often thought that at least in CA, where the apprenticeship path could pay off would be competing for jobs against the lower ranked schools like Santa Clara, USF, Pacific, Davis, etc. It can be much harder (due to the glut of law school grads) for graduates of programs like those to find jobs, unless they graduated at the top of their class. The apprenticeship path might help your resume stick out compared to the mass of middle of the road grads from those schools.
wallstquant 11y ago
For those interested in Washington states rules: http://www.wsba.org/~/media/Files/Licensing_Lawyer%20Conduct/Admissions/Special%20Admissions/APR%206%20Rules%20and%20Regulations.ashx http://www.wsba.org/~/media/Files/Licensing_Lawyer%20Conduct... I like the fact the board of governors can terminate a law clerk from the program for any other grounds deemed pertinent.
fnordprefect 11y ago
Actually, the interesting thing is that the US is somewhat of an outlier. (I am a practising non-US lawyer, with an emphasis on tech, and I program extensively as a hobby.) In the Australia, UK, and other common law jurisdictions, you generally do not need to have a law degree, but you do have to do a short course that gives you the academic basics behind law - this can be and usually is done part-time, as an evening course and usually results in the award of a diploma. (see e.g. http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/law-careers/becoming-a-solicitor/routes-to-qualifying/ http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/law-careers/becoming-a-solicito... or http://www.lpab.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/lpab/legalprofession_prospective_students/legalprofession_prospective_students.aspx http://www.lpab.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/lpab/legalprofessio...) While a good law degree helps get jobs, some of the best lawyers I have met used this path to get admitted to practice. Being able to think like a lawyer is important, but the life of the law is common sense, experience and good judgment. That cannot be taught. Newly-qualified lawyers invariably tend to be up to speed on the theoretical aspects of law but cannot run a lawsuit, manage a deal or draft a contract to save themselves. What law school teaches (the basics of the subjects and thinking like a lawyer) is only about 1/10 to 1/20 of the role. The real meat of the role is thinking strategically and pragmatically: yes, I can oppose this request, but what is it going to prompt the other side to do, and how will judge X take it when the matter is brought in front of him. In other words, what will the client possibly gain or lose from taking that course? Is it worth it? And what other courses are open? And what are they likely to lead to? What do I need to get to win the case, and what is optional, unnecessary or a distraction? How does this fit with what the client wants and (often) what the client needs that they don't even realise they need or (commonly) that they actively don't want to do? Good lawyers are thinking multiple steps down the road, not just the immediate problems, and have a good idea where they want to end up. You can only get this by experience, and ideally by watching and learning from people who are experienced at it while they do it. You could try to do it by self-study, but you would likely be sued into oblivion by your clients for all the mistakes you would make (which would usually be caught and avoided by the more experienced person you should be learning under, and if not absorbed by their insurance). Based on my experience, which includes international experience, I estimate that you need 10 years of doing it full-time to be at a point where you would be able to describe yourself as competent, and able to do it alone, provided you have been working and learning during that time. You need to learn human nature, how people think and are motivated, how they react to incentives and disincentives, and how they react to normative or moral issues. You need to appreciate that you never find black or white but only shades of grey. You need to learn ruthless pragmatism. You need to learn persuasion. You need to learn to recognise the gulf between what a contract or statute might say in black and white, versus what a judge will do when confronted with the practical justice of the contest. That difference is magnified if a jury is involved (don't get me started on the stupidities of the US jury system or the use of juries for anything other than criminal cases). Law is much more a social science than it is anything else, but there is a big place for logic and logical thinking. Since you also need interpersonal skills, it is a hard discipline because you need to bring both "left" and "right" brain skills to bear.
sandworm101 11y ago
I laugh a little at those who think today's system of legal education is corrupt, costly or protectionist. Law has a very long tradition of formal education and requirements. Today's system is a vast improvement over previous which often required prospective lawyers to complere ridiculous tasks such as "sitting dinners" at dining clubs. That system formally allowed social clubs to dictate who could and couldn't progress. Nearly anyone could blackball you. And don't get me started about the stonecutter requirements at some schools. The tradition is still alive:http://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/may/12/barristers-dinners-fun-indulgence http://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/may/12/barristers-dinner... q: How to Be a Lawyer Without Going to Law School? a: Read a few wikipedia articles about copyright law. Jump on hackernews to give some advice to a startup founder to cheap to talk to a real lawyer. Feel good about yourself for doing something for free that other charge $$$$. Then disappear before finding out what happens.
- tptacek 11y ago
  One reason your comment might be downvoted (and the reason I downvoted it, too) is that the first 1/3rd of this article rebuts your argument about the history of formal requirements for lawyers. By not engaging with the article's argument, you give the impression of having replied to the title, not the contents of the article.
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    Um, no. The article speaks of the current system, the current very difficult system of which apprenticeships are a part. If you really want to 'engage' the article, I'd rip it to shreds for lack of depth. It makes no mention of cross-boarder accreditation, instead focusing only on bar pass rates as if that is some judge of quality education (law school /= bar prep). Take for example this: "In many respects, the American Bar Association and other overseeing law bodies don’t take apprenticeships seriously, and do everything they can to corral students into three-year, accredited law schools." Does the author know what the ABA is? It doesn't regulate lawyers in any way. It has no authority and many lawyers (most?) are not affiliated with it. Nor do you have to be a lawyer or law student to join the ABA. (PM me if you want info on that one. I have a few free trial memberships kicking around somewhere.) The advantage of an ABA-accredited law school is that it will be recognized in every US state. Apprenticeships are not. Going that route might bind you to practice in that particular state. A full and proper law degree will allow you to become a lawyer in any US state at any time ... for life. Engage the content? It clickbate junk not worth anyone's time.
rpgmaker 11y ago
I thought this was going to be an actual howto with resources to help us learn law or a summary of the subjects that you should read about. Oh well, I liked the history lesson.
grellas 11y ago
U.S. law is primarily based on a combination of judicial, legislative, and constitutional structures that effectively prescribe rules for ordering the formal and prescriptive aspects of society. These structures are spread over three layers: federal, state, local. The federal constitution defines the broadest formal structure to which all the rest must conform: it defines what powers and limitations apply to the national government (consisting of three co-equal branches) and leaves scope for state and local governments to function within their own realms of sovereignty and to define the rules by which they do so. In theory, federal sovereignty is strictly limited and any powers not expressly given to the federal authority by the constitution are reserved to the states. Within the scope of its express powers, the federal authority can but need not preempt all state and local law. States in turn have their own constitutions and these provide that state law can but need not preempt local laws. Where laws are not preempted, they can peacefully co-exist in a way that, in the aggregate, defines the broad scope of the American law as a whole. Within this broad framework, you have the legislative, the judiciary, and the executive functions (again, existing in separate forms at the federal, state, and local levels). The legislature enacts statutes that set forth formal rules governing this or that in society, taken as a class. Courts decide particular cases and controversies and publish decisions that in turn can become binding law as precedents commensurate with the scope of authority vested in the court deciding the case (with decisions of the highest courts, e.g., the U.S. Supreme Court, having potential binding effect on the entire nation and with decisions of other appellate courts, both federal and state, having important but more restricted binding effect) and also interpret the meaning of legislative enactments as disputes arise as to their particular meaning in a given case or controversy. Legislative enactments can also set up administrative agencies that have full authority to administer a particular statutory scheme (e.g., the Federal Communications Act sets up the F.C.C., which has plenary authority to determine how the statutory scheme is implemented as defined by what Congress intended in enacting the statute). To be a good U.S. lawyer, you need to be well educated and trained to function within this system. This means having a good logical mind that is able to understand and sort through the various formal systems and layers of law, to understand what they each mean, to understand how they relate to each other, and (most important) to discern how all of these apply to and affect any particular case (either in structuring a transaction or fighting a dispute). This, by the way, is why it is so difficult and even potentially treacherous for those who have not been so trained to read a few "rules" and just assume they know what they are doing in concluding that, because of this or that rule, this or that must follow. That approach can work well for many situations but can get you into big trouble if you are missing key pieces that might also apply to the particular situation and that you simply do not see (or do not appreciate the effect of). This is also why law has been so stubbornly resistant to the idea of being reduced to algorithmic solutions along engineering lines. Law certainly does have its patterns and can be reduced to algorithmic solutions in discrete areas but trying to do so across the spectrum of the different layers of sovereignty, the spectrum of legislative enactments and judicial decisions, and byzantine areas of administrative law (e.g., U.S. Tax Code regulations) is a difficult task of a very tall order. In my day at law school (late 1970s - and I believe it is broadly similar today), American law schools primarily used the "case system" as the preferred approach to teaching students to learn to "think like a lawyer." In other words, you learned very little about the actual day-to-day practice of law but you studied intensely to learn all the formal structures and to read through, analyze, and master appellate level case law interpreting and applying that law in the form of particular cases and controversies. As a given important case would be decided, you would learn the legal principles it expounded, whether it was about tort law, contract law, real property law, criminal law, or whatever. Back in that day, law schools would also offer limited offerings focusing on a few important legislative schemes and also giving very limited opportunities to do short internships giving some practical experience. In general, what all this meant was that good law school graduates would master the formal aspects of the law and would be let loose into the real world knowing very little about how any of it actually worked. Once you passed the bar exam and began actual real-world practice, it would typically take a full year or two before you could anything that resembled efficient practice, another couple of years before you learned to handle relatively simple things both competently and efficiently, and another several years before you could learn to do all of the above and, in addition, learn to think strategically. When you can finally do all of this, you are functioning at partner level. In essence, then, all that I have described in the immediately preceding paragraph, is effectively a true apprenticeship. And this is a huge part of becoming a good lawyer. Can you skip the formal education and still become a good or even a great lawyer? Absolutely. Is it easy to do? No, it is very difficult and that is the advantage of the formal education via law school. In essence, what you are buying through a good law education is (one hopes) expert guidance through a complicated thicket. It helps you focus and also learn through lectures what academics can teach about the fascination of legal logic. This does not always work well but, in really good law school, it does and it helps a lot. Is it indispensable? Not at all. There are many gifted people who have the right aptitude and can bypass the formal education without any detriment whatever. If they are properly apprenticed, they can learn all that is necessary in a real-world environment and supplement this with independent study. Strong auto-didactic skills are very much needed here. But with that, and a good mentor, you can master the practice of law without problem. After all, the vast bulk of what most formally educated lawyers learn is also through the apprenticeship part of their training. So, in important ways, the different paths do overlap. Is it easy to market what you do having gone the pure apprenticeship route? I would say that, here as well, there are significant difficulties. It can be done but likely only if you are good enough to make a mark with clients while serving as an apprentice and thereby building a reputation such that clients will overlook the lack of a formal law school education. This works better in specialty fields than in others. Am I saying the law school approach is better? It probably is and it certainly is a lot easier. But I am all for the apprenticeship approach for those who have the skill and the aptitude. There is enough of the guild system built into American legal systems and anything that gives people more choices is to be welcomed.

155 points by baazaar 11y ago

I had a great experience with one of these types. He worked bagging groceries while perusing his apprenticeship and passed the bar with high marks. I asked him why, and he said he loves the law and did not want to be as financially committed as so many were. He also decided to laser focus on a couple of common aspects of law and absolutely nail them. Often, when I'm going to use a professional of some sort, I will ask them about their journey to practice whatever it is they do. Many have a quick statement you can tell they have prepped to dispense with it all efficiently. No worries, I value my time too. Of course, many ask because they feel they should. But, some ask out of a more genuine interest, and that is me. This guy told me all about his journey, and I could feel it. He is doing something he feels something for and he wants to do it well. Love it. I know exactly who I am dealing with and what to expect. I can trust the intent too, which is important. Money is nice, but you can't buy well directed passion. In my experience, professionals who can pick up on that interest and have a real dialog are some of the best to work with. Not that the others aren't. It is just easier to figure someone out and work well, trust and value them when they can or will share on a more real, basic level. To me, it seems there should be a path for people like this. They often know what they want and they feel what they need to in order to honor whatever it is. Filtering that out is what organizations like the ABA, AMA, etc... do. And we need them to do that for us too. No argument. But, doing that does conflict with maximizing self directed people, and I get it. They paid, and shouldn't everyone who is serious? No, frankly. And there is the rub. Software is one area where these people often and frequently do shine bright. Arguably, we are better for that. Not everyone can or will pay. To me, having some intrinsic drive is worth a lot.

lern_too_spel 11y ago

It's a bit strange to compare costs against a T14 law school.

pdshrader 11y ago
The breakdown between "Tuition" and "Professional Degree Tuition" is strange (it's a Berkeley Law breakdown), but those costs together are pretty accurate for any law school, T14 or not. Quite a few law schools have even higher tuition.

cdbattags 11y ago

Mike Ross?

geebee 11y ago

I can see why this topic is interesting to people on Hacker News, because "self-study" is not just an option in software development, it's really the only way. Yeah, a lot of us have CS degrees or degrees in related fields, but in the end, you have to read, absorb, prototype, evaluate, adopt, or reject thousands of pages of dense material every year to stay current. I really do think that software developers may be unusually well prepared to study law this way, because developers really are accustomed to massive amounts of self-directed learning.

nmrm2 11y ago
> Yeah, a lot of us have CS degrees or degrees in related fields, but in the end, you have to read, absorb, prototype, evaluate, adopt, or reject thousands of pages of dense material every year to stay current So do most practitioners in careers that are typically associated with or require a university degree: actuaries, accountants, engineers, lawyers, doctors, teachers, etc. all have to stay current with their respective fields and do so primarily through self-study. Of course there exist people in all of those careers who don't. But the same is true in software.
- geebee 11y ago
  I agree. The main difference is that all of the fields you've listed already have a formalized study and exam path. Software is one of the few knowledge based fields that you can enter purely on self-study at the highest level (I'm not sure about actuaries, if you studied math on your own, could you enter the actuarial field? Not sure about this one). As a result, I wonder if maybe software developers are a little more inclined, as a "profession", toward paths that are less formalized.
  - msandford 11y ago
    > (I'm not sure about actuaries, if you studied math on your own, could you enter the actuarial field? Not sure about this one). Yes, anyone can take the exams, there are a handful. And if you pass them all nobody really cares about your degree. But from what I gather you'd better be pretty sharp to pull it off.

pmorici 11y ago

I looked into doing this a few years back after I disputed a bunch of abusive tickets in federal court and won. Ultimately I didn't live in one of the 4 states that allows apprenticing and I wasn't serious enough about it to want to move to one of them that did. It's too bad this isn't an option everywhere because I would totally be a lawyer on a volunteer basis but there is no way I would want to do it as a profession. Part of me also wonders if I could ever be as interested and driven to solve another person's legal problems that weren't my own.

tracker1 11y ago
Depending on where you live, you could petition for a ballot initiative to ammend your state's law. In Arizona it's relatively easy to do so... now, once commercial interests are opposed to you and willing to throw money at something, actually getting it to pass from voters is a different story. I've considered doing the same... though also don't live in a state where it's an option. Though I happen to live in a state where self-driven voter referendum has a lot of legal power.

unimpressive 11y ago

>While bar exam pass rates in other states range from 18% to 33%, Washington state has a surprisingly high pass rate, at 56%. Washington’s state bar, more than any other state’s, provides extensive support for students who choose to apprentice, including a volunteer network who sets study standards and monitor progress. Last year, these resources resulted in 67% of Washington apprentices passing the bar exam, nearly as high as those who graduated from ABA-accredited schools. So where is the support network for people trying to learn our field in depth through self study? As nice as HN/Reddit/etc all are, they're not really a replacement for a study in the rigorous theory foundations that let you break away from having your career defined by one transient technology after another.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
Most of those lawyers won't get jobs, and if they do get jobs they won't be well paid. There's a glut of lawyers at the moment, and it's not at all the easy money outsiders think it is. Law has the usual power curve for income and prestige - a relatively small number of partners, mostly from privileged and connected backgrounds, make most of the money and get most of the opportunities. A few potential stars get useful mentoring. But there's a huge army of law workers who only really only do crappy clerical work (boilerplate wills, property sales, debt chasing, and such) and handle petty criminal cases. IME a lot of these lawyers aren't that good. They get results because the public are intimidated by lawyers, not because they're brilliant at their jobs. It's not hard to self-study procedure and case law if you're going up against them, and give yourself a better than average chance of winning. I think dev culture is more open. If you want to talk to the creator of <some cool thing> you often can. If it's a FOSS project, you can get involved and add it to your resume. There are IRC channels and blogs and mailing lists and many other options. This is not to be confused with startup culture, which is a different thing, and does seem to suffer from social exclusion. But if you're more interested in cranking out code than feeding money to your pet unicorn, dev culture really does seem to be relatively open and meritocratic.
vinceguidry 11y ago
> a study in the rigorous theory foundations that let you break away from having your career defined by one transient technology after another. There's a much easier way to accomplish that shift. Start a business, perhaps SaaS or a software product. Alternatively you could just stop hopping jobs every few years.

ZanyProgrammer 11y ago

Sure, the apprenticeship path has much less non dischargeable debt, but you still need to find a job to make ends meat, or hope that the lawyer you're apprenticing with pays you a living wage. I've often thought that at least in CA, where the apprenticeship path could pay off would be competing for jobs against the lower ranked schools like Santa Clara, USF, Pacific, Davis, etc. It can be much harder (due to the glut of law school grads) for graduates of programs like those to find jobs, unless they graduated at the top of their class. The apprenticeship path might help your resume stick out compared to the mass of middle of the road grads from those schools.

wallstquant 11y ago

For those interested in Washington states rules: http://www.wsba.org/~/media/Files/Licensing_Lawyer%20Conduct/Admissions/Special%20Admissions/APR%206%20Rules%20and%20Regulations.ashx http://www.wsba.org/~/media/Files/Licensing_Lawyer%20Conduct... I like the fact the board of governors can terminate a law clerk from the program for any other grounds deemed pertinent.

fnordprefect 11y ago

Actually, the interesting thing is that the US is somewhat of an outlier. (I am a practising non-US lawyer, with an emphasis on tech, and I program extensively as a hobby.) In the Australia, UK, and other common law jurisdictions, you generally do not need to have a law degree, but you do have to do a short course that gives you the academic basics behind law - this can be and usually is done part-time, as an evening course and usually results in the award of a diploma. (see e.g. http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/law-careers/becoming-a-solicitor/routes-to-qualifying/ http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/law-careers/becoming-a-solicito... or http://www.lpab.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/lpab/legalprofession_prospective_students/legalprofession_prospective_students.aspx http://www.lpab.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/lpab/legalprofessio...) While a good law degree helps get jobs, some of the best lawyers I have met used this path to get admitted to practice. Being able to think like a lawyer is important, but the life of the law is common sense, experience and good judgment. That cannot be taught. Newly-qualified lawyers invariably tend to be up to speed on the theoretical aspects of law but cannot run a lawsuit, manage a deal or draft a contract to save themselves. What law school teaches (the basics of the subjects and thinking like a lawyer) is only about 1/10 to 1/20 of the role. The real meat of the role is thinking strategically and pragmatically: yes, I can oppose this request, but what is it going to prompt the other side to do, and how will judge X take it when the matter is brought in front of him. In other words, what will the client possibly gain or lose from taking that course? Is it worth it? And what other courses are open? And what are they likely to lead to? What do I need to get to win the case, and what is optional, unnecessary or a distraction? How does this fit with what the client wants and (often) what the client needs that they don't even realise they need or (commonly) that they actively don't want to do? Good lawyers are thinking multiple steps down the road, not just the immediate problems, and have a good idea where they want to end up. You can only get this by experience, and ideally by watching and learning from people who are experienced at it while they do it. You could try to do it by self-study, but you would likely be sued into oblivion by your clients for all the mistakes you would make (which would usually be caught and avoided by the more experienced person you should be learning under, and if not absorbed by their insurance). Based on my experience, which includes international experience, I estimate that you need 10 years of doing it full-time to be at a point where you would be able to describe yourself as competent, and able to do it alone, provided you have been working and learning during that time. You need to learn human nature, how people think and are motivated, how they react to incentives and disincentives, and how they react to normative or moral issues. You need to appreciate that you never find black or white but only shades of grey. You need to learn ruthless pragmatism. You need to learn persuasion. You need to learn to recognise the gulf between what a contract or statute might say in black and white, versus what a judge will do when confronted with the practical justice of the contest. That difference is magnified if a jury is involved (don't get me started on the stupidities of the US jury system or the use of juries for anything other than criminal cases). Law is much more a social science than it is anything else, but there is a big place for logic and logical thinking. Since you also need interpersonal skills, it is a hard discipline because you need to bring both "left" and "right" brain skills to bear.

sandworm101 11y ago

I laugh a little at those who think today's system of legal education is corrupt, costly or protectionist. Law has a very long tradition of formal education and requirements. Today's system is a vast improvement over previous which often required prospective lawyers to complere ridiculous tasks such as "sitting dinners" at dining clubs. That system formally allowed social clubs to dictate who could and couldn't progress. Nearly anyone could blackball you. And don't get me started about the stonecutter requirements at some schools. The tradition is still alive:http://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/may/12/barristers-dinners-fun-indulgence http://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/may/12/barristers-dinner... q: How to Be a Lawyer Without Going to Law School? a: Read a few wikipedia articles about copyright law. Jump on hackernews to give some advice to a startup founder to cheap to talk to a real lawyer. Feel good about yourself for doing something for free that other charge $$$$. Then disappear before finding out what happens.

tptacek 11y ago
One reason your comment might be downvoted (and the reason I downvoted it, too) is that the first 1/3rd of this article rebuts your argument about the history of formal requirements for lawyers. By not engaging with the article's argument, you give the impression of having replied to the title, not the contents of the article.
- sandworm101 11y ago
  Um, no. The article speaks of the current system, the current very difficult system of which apprenticeships are a part. If you really want to 'engage' the article, I'd rip it to shreds for lack of depth. It makes no mention of cross-boarder accreditation, instead focusing only on bar pass rates as if that is some judge of quality education (law school /= bar prep). Take for example this: "In many respects, the American Bar Association and other overseeing law bodies don’t take apprenticeships seriously, and do everything they can to corral students into three-year, accredited law schools." Does the author know what the ABA is? It doesn't regulate lawyers in any way. It has no authority and many lawyers (most?) are not affiliated with it. Nor do you have to be a lawyer or law student to join the ABA. (PM me if you want info on that one. I have a few free trial memberships kicking around somewhere.) The advantage of an ABA-accredited law school is that it will be recognized in every US state. Apprenticeships are not. Going that route might bind you to practice in that particular state. A full and proper law degree will allow you to become a lawyer in any US state at any time ... for life. Engage the content? It clickbate junk not worth anyone's time.

rpgmaker 11y ago

I thought this was going to be an actual howto with resources to help us learn law or a summary of the subjects that you should read about. Oh well, I liked the history lesson.

grellas 11y ago

U.S. law is primarily based on a combination of judicial, legislative, and constitutional structures that effectively prescribe rules for ordering the formal and prescriptive aspects of society. These structures are spread over three layers: federal, state, local. The federal constitution defines the broadest formal structure to which all the rest must conform: it defines what powers and limitations apply to the national government (consisting of three co-equal branches) and leaves scope for state and local governments to function within their own realms of sovereignty and to define the rules by which they do so. In theory, federal sovereignty is strictly limited and any powers not expressly given to the federal authority by the constitution are reserved to the states. Within the scope of its express powers, the federal authority can but need not preempt all state and local law. States in turn have their own constitutions and these provide that state law can but need not preempt local laws. Where laws are not preempted, they can peacefully co-exist in a way that, in the aggregate, defines the broad scope of the American law as a whole. Within this broad framework, you have the legislative, the judiciary, and the executive functions (again, existing in separate forms at the federal, state, and local levels). The legislature enacts statutes that set forth formal rules governing this or that in society, taken as a class. Courts decide particular cases and controversies and publish decisions that in turn can become binding law as precedents commensurate with the scope of authority vested in the court deciding the case (with decisions of the highest courts, e.g., the U.S. Supreme Court, having potential binding effect on the entire nation and with decisions of other appellate courts, both federal and state, having important but more restricted binding effect) and also interpret the meaning of legislative enactments as disputes arise as to their particular meaning in a given case or controversy. Legislative enactments can also set up administrative agencies that have full authority to administer a particular statutory scheme (e.g., the Federal Communications Act sets up the F.C.C., which has plenary authority to determine how the statutory scheme is implemented as defined by what Congress intended in enacting the statute). To be a good U.S. lawyer, you need to be well educated and trained to function within this system. This means having a good logical mind that is able to understand and sort through the various formal systems and layers of law, to understand what they each mean, to understand how they relate to each other, and (most important) to discern how all of these apply to and affect any particular case (either in structuring a transaction or fighting a dispute). This, by the way, is why it is so difficult and even potentially treacherous for those who have not been so trained to read a few "rules" and just assume they know what they are doing in concluding that, because of this or that rule, this or that must follow. That approach can work well for many situations but can get you into big trouble if you are missing key pieces that might also apply to the particular situation and that you simply do not see (or do not appreciate the effect of). This is also why law has been so stubbornly resistant to the idea of being reduced to algorithmic solutions along engineering lines. Law certainly does have its patterns and can be reduced to algorithmic solutions in discrete areas but trying to do so across the spectrum of the different layers of sovereignty, the spectrum of legislative enactments and judicial decisions, and byzantine areas of administrative law (e.g., U.S. Tax Code regulations) is a difficult task of a very tall order. In my day at law school (late 1970s - and I believe it is broadly similar today), American law schools primarily used the "case system" as the preferred approach to teaching students to learn to "think like a lawyer." In other words, you learned very little about the actual day-to-day practice of law but you studied intensely to learn all the formal structures and to read through, analyze, and master appellate level case law interpreting and applying that law in the form of particular cases and controversies. As a given important case would be decided, you would learn the legal principles it expounded, whether it was about tort law, contract law, real property law, criminal law, or whatever. Back in that day, law schools would also offer limited offerings focusing on a few important legislative schemes and also giving very limited opportunities to do short internships giving some practical experience. In general, what all this meant was that good law school graduates would master the formal aspects of the law and would be let loose into the real world knowing very little about how any of it actually worked. Once you passed the bar exam and began actual real-world practice, it would typically take a full year or two before you could anything that resembled efficient practice, another couple of years before you learned to handle relatively simple things both competently and efficiently, and another several years before you could learn to do all of the above and, in addition, learn to think strategically. When you can finally do all of this, you are functioning at partner level. In essence, then, all that I have described in the immediately preceding paragraph, is effectively a true apprenticeship. And this is a huge part of becoming a good lawyer. Can you skip the formal education and still become a good or even a great lawyer? Absolutely. Is it easy to do? No, it is very difficult and that is the advantage of the formal education via law school. In essence, what you are buying through a good law education is (one hopes) expert guidance through a complicated thicket. It helps you focus and also learn through lectures what academics can teach about the fascination of legal logic. This does not always work well but, in really good law school, it does and it helps a lot. Is it indispensable? Not at all. There are many gifted people who have the right aptitude and can bypass the formal education without any detriment whatever. If they are properly apprenticed, they can learn all that is necessary in a real-world environment and supplement this with independent study. Strong auto-didactic skills are very much needed here. But with that, and a good mentor, you can master the practice of law without problem. After all, the vast bulk of what most formally educated lawyers learn is also through the apprenticeship part of their training. So, in important ways, the different paths do overlap. Is it easy to market what you do having gone the pure apprenticeship route? I would say that, here as well, there are significant difficulties. It can be done but likely only if you are good enough to make a mark with clients while serving as an apprentice and thereby building a reputation such that clients will overlook the lack of a formal law school education. This works better in specialty fields than in others. Am I saying the law school approach is better? It probably is and it certainly is a lot easier. But I am all for the apprenticeship approach for those who have the skill and the aptitude. There is enough of the guild system built into American legal systems and anything that gives people more choices is to be welcomed.