What Actually Happens in Law School Part II

In Part I, I discussed the subjects taught in law school. Now I want to discuss how we learn those subjects. 

In so stating, I should clarify that any interest I have in critically analyzing whether law school today is properly preparing lawyers for the challenges and opportunities we confront is best placed in a separate article. I will, though, hint at the notion that there are serious discussions among certain members of the legal community about whether law school today properly prepares lawyers for the full range of activities today's society needs from them. 

Nevertheless, law school is primarily interested presently at training law students to interpret legal texts such as statutes, constitutions, and cases, most law school classes focus on just that. This usually manifests itself in reading decisions by appellate courts (US Supreme Courts and federal and state appellate courts)  and interpreting how and why the court arose at the result it did. As courts are expected to articulate their analysis, at least to a certain extent, law students are able to understand how legal analysis works by reviewing past decisions. 

To this end, law exams generally require law students to take a factual scenario, identify each legal issue raised in the factual scenario, and walk through the steps of its resolution. On occasion, exam questions require students to identify the best arguments for both sides identified in the scenario.

 For instance, in my criminal law class, I recall being asked to take a factual scenario, identify each crime would charge the alleged criminal in the scenario, and then take the role as the defense counsel. By way of another example, in a class on contract law, I was given a scenario where two people had a certain dialogue, one party to the discussion had the impression the two had entered a contract and thought the other party therefore failed to perform, whereas the other party did not think they entered into a contract. 

Law school is specifically directed towards this type of factual analysis. As a result, law professors often direct their classes with that mindset, hence a law school classroom experience known as the “Socratic method,” namely a method whereby the professor asks questions of students with the goal of getting them to explain how and why the court came up with the result it did. 

Although there is very little way for a starting student to realize this, the pattern of law professor questions is often organized in the same pattern as the pattern of how legal decisions are written. The facts are discussed first, with an eye towards explicitly spelling out those facts which are essential to making the relevant legal determinations. Second, one identifies the relevant law applicable to the factual scenario, spelling out the method courts use to resolve the legal questions at hand in the case.  Third, one analyzes how the legal principles and rules apply to the facts at hand.

 For instance, in my second example above, a court would write out the case law applicable to determining whether a contract exists when two parties differ as to whether they entered into a contract. Given that the court is probably being asked to also identify what damages are available should a breech occur, the court would likely spell out the law on that subject as well. Once identifying the law, and the facts, the court can begin the process of analyzing the facts against the law. This involves both applying the facts to the law, and determining whether one side’s argument is more consistent with the legal framework at hand.