Practice Ready: Are We There Yet?

Abstract: Clinical legal education is garnering more attention as a vehicle for providing the training required to graduate "practice ready" lawyers as law schools face economic concerns and increasing expectations from the legal market. To create a school that trains practice ready lawyers, law schools are increasingly recognizing that they need significant curricular reform. Schools must combine the traditional case method of teaching with experiential learning, where the curriculum focuses not just on doctrine but on training professionals. This Article proposes accepting a framework designed to achieve such goals, wherein first year classes relate doctrine to practice more effectively and the experience culminates with students spending their third year in practice. This approach would leave creativity and expression of mission to course development within the accepted framework.IntroductionIf law schools aim to graduate lawyers who are "practice ready," how effective is clinical education relative to other pedagogical methods, both experiential (including simulation, practicum, and externship offerings) and non-experiential (including classroom and seminar courses), in achieving that goal?1The assertion that law schools aim to graduate practice ready lawyers lies at the heart of the debate about the role of legal education in preparing students for the profession. Critiques of legal education are abundant and the conclusions are fairly consistent.2 Yet, despite these critiques, law schools still generally operate on the assumption that legal education is ideal and that deconstructing cases in doctrinal courses is its essence.3It once seemed cutting-edge for law schools to proclaim that they produce practice ready lawyers; buses tooling down Massachusetts Avenue in the District of Columbia even boasted the phrase as an advertising slogan. The concept held great promise, as it meant that schools were actually fulfilling their goals for accreditation.4 Over time, law school deans increasingly used practice readiness as a talking point. It surfaced in critiques by the profession and made its way into discussions regarding revisions of the ABA Standards for Accreditation of Law Schools.5What does practice ready mean? It could mean that graduates, equipped with a basic array of substantive knowledge, are able to learn what they need to practice through apprenticeship in their first job. In the comforting embrace of an office prepared to introduce the necessary professional competencies, graduates would learn the essentials for participation in the profession. But law schools do promise more-that graduates who pass the bar exam are capable of representing clients, no further lessons required.6 As it happens, however, law schools overlook or tacitly reject that promise.For years, law schools remained satisfied that they adequately prepared students for the profession-they believed that introducing students to the skill of legal analysis and to certain areas of substantive law achieved their preparatory obligation.7 The constellation of substantive law offerings has long remained the same at its core.8 Additional subject areas generally reflect faculty preferences as well as pressures by students and the legal community to address legal developments of growing interest and demand.9 The conveyance of doctrine through analysis of cases is the dominant approach to teaching and it has undeniable benefits: it efficiently introduces a significant amount of material, demands that students understand and analyze the material, and creates a contained, shared experience with the material.10 It is a socializing process that builds a foundation for approaching doctrine and, significantly, for taking the bar examination.11Despite almost a century of critique that this approach does not provide enough preparation for the profession, law schools have been reluctant to substantially modify it.12 Yet, many in the law academy still hold onto the traditional approach, believing it will-or unconcerned that it will not-give students the grounding required to handle the pressing needs of their clients, whether an individual, corporation, government entity, or NGO. …