Too much legal education?

Many law students think there’s too much legal education. In U.S. law schools. Students regularly question whether the third year of law school is really necessary and many often use the opportunity to intern with law firms or legal service organizations (or at least, that’s what they did in better economic times). I tend to agree that there’s too much legal education at law schools. Ask several mid-level corporate associates at major law firms about the exceptions to the doctrine of consideration and you’re likely to draw more than one blank. Is there anyone practicing in corporate law or even regular litigation who remembers what the Rule Against Perpetuities really says? For that matter, there probably aren’t very many law students who could clearly tell you what the Rule Against Perpetuities is (I confess I have a hard time with that rule myself). But I do think there should be more education at law schools – education based on other disciplines. Again, the crucial question is “which other subjects?” For example, at a number of Indian law schools, courses in economics, political science and history are mandatory but courses in accounting or basic finance are not (although most schools offer optional courses in these subjects). Basic courses in political science and history are certainly useful in developing a background sense of the law and how it functions, but ask any corporate associate about whether it helps to be able to read a balance sheet – his answer’s likely to be an enthusiastic affirmative. To take just one example, a recent interview with Cyril Shroff on Bar & Bench reveals that Amarchand Mangaldas used the recent downturn to train their capital markets teams in the basics of accounting.

Too much legal education? barandbench.com Thu, Aug 5, 2010