- Quickdraw McLaw
- 39 Comments
- 615 Views
Elliot Anderson, Nevada state assemblyman and ’15 Boyd grad, wrote an opinion piece in The Nevada Independent yesterday. In it he discusses several options for improving bar passage rates without lowering standards. Go check it out and come back and let us know what you think. Any better ideas?
"In it he discusses several options for improving bar passage rates without lowering standards."
Easy. Simple. Close the bottom third of ABA-accredited law schools and reduce enrollment by about 25% at the remainder. Bar passage rates would skyrocket and more lawyers would actually pay back their student loans.
Anderson makes a good point: Instead of Boyd's Dean complaining to the NSC that passage rates aren't high enough, maybe he should revamp Boyd's curriculum to require a full year of CivPro, Torts, Contracts, and Property. Then require Evidence, Crim Pro, and Estates, Trusts, and Wills as mandatory classes. See how the Boydians do then…
I am honestly shocked that Boyd doesn't require a full year of CivPro, Torts, Contracts, and Property. That's straight-up malpractice. But I don't think correcting that will fix the bar passage issue. 8:30 is right, and the truth isn't going to go away through any amount of creative thinking. Law school classes don't prepare you for the bar exam like BarBri (or other bar prep courses). The problem is who is taking the exam, not the level of prep. I would wager that people who fail take BarBri (the gold standard for bar prep) at the same rates as those who pass. Stats prove every year in every state that multi-time takers are progressively less likely to pass, not more, because it's not a matter of prep, it's a matter of capability. Don't get me wrong. You will very likely fail if you don't prep. But all the prep in the world won't help someone who just doesn't have the intellect to pass, and more of those people have been taking the exam as law schools have been maintaining class sizes as applicant pools shrink, resulting in classes with lower average LSATs. No one should be surprised by mathematically calculable results.
"I am honestly shocked that Boyd doesn't require a full year of CivPro, Torts, Contracts, and Property."
Can someone from Boyd '13 confirm this?!
Legal education is already so incredibly inept. It's astonishing to me that some of the few useful black letter law classes are whittled down to a single semester. You could, perhaps cover Torts in a single semester, but Civil Procedure?!! Holy shit!
And what do you Boydians take in place of a full year of the core subjects during 1L? Electives? "Law and Media/Society/Gender Theory/Tittlewinks" bullshit courses?
2012 grad here. Boyd used to require a full year of Civ Pro, Torts, Con Law and Property, but not Contracts or Criminal Law. Maybe things have changed though.
What the hell? Now at Boyd, Torts is a 4 credit, 1 semester class. Same goes for Property, Civ Pro, Contracts. Con Law takes 2 semesters. Evidence has never been required, but only fools failed to take it. What on earth is going on over there?
https://www.law.unlv.edu/academics/jd-program/sample-curriculum
1. What the hell is "Lawyering Process? Legal Writing?
2. Is "Lawyering Process" actually taught by professors who have actually practiced law?
3:04: Lawyering Process is legal writing. The LP professors that I had have practiced law. Boyd's legal writing program is ranked 2nd in the country, and has been for several years.
I have no idea what it is at Boyd. At my law school, "Legal Process" or "Lawyering Process" was a one-semester course on the legal system, legal process and learning to think like a lawyer– almost more a Philosophy of Law and Lawyering. Legal Research and Writing was a full year 1L course separate from the Legal Process.
did the curiculum change? I'm a 2004 Boyd grad and I had a full year of civpro, torts, contracts and property. I also took the other classes mentioned but don't remember if they were required. conlaw was and I think evidence was too.
Yes… Boyd '16 alum here. We had 1 semester of civpro, contracts, property, and torts; but, each were 4 credit classes instead of the usual 3 credits. 1 year of conlaw is required. Evidence is not required, although I think it should be. Also, criminal law is required, but the two crimpro classes are not.
The fact that the single semester of civil procedure is 4 credits is no defense. A full year of civil procedure is 6 credits. Thus, Boyd grads are only getting 2/3 of the instructions their peers receive in one of the most critical black letter courses.
Only legal academics who have never taken a deposition, never been in front of DC Bulla and never tried a case could think this curriculum is acceptable or defensible. Forget issues surrounding bar passage. UNLV Boyd School of Law is doing its students and the people of Nevada a tremendous disservice by not mandating a traditional 1L schedule.
I once heard the story of a Harvard Law graduate who had to ask what a "deposition" was.
9:28: Boyd '13 here. We had a full year of CivPro, ConLaw, and Property, with a 3 credit CrimLaw class, a 4 credit torts class, and a 5 credit contracts class. Evidence was not mandatory but most took it.
Boyd '14 here. We were the last to have full year of CivPro, ConLaw, and Property. After us they changed things dramatically to make it streamlined/easier (whatever you wanna call it). I still dont know how you can learn CivPro in 1L year in one semester. There are 10+ year attorneys who dont know CivPro cause its just that complex. Contract should also stay one year, as that is a beast of its own. Property can be streamlined, although I think Boyd should make a special lesson on the HOA mess going on in the state so at least our future lawyers know the HOA shit they are about to step into. I also agree they should make Evidence and CrimPro mandatory, as well as some other Bar Classes. Cause let's be real, no one gives a shit about "Masculinities in the Law"
"Cause let's be real, no one gives a shit about "'Masculinities in the Law'"
This is the problem with having law school instructors who have little to no actual experience practicing law. It's a travesty that future lawyers are taught and trained by people who either haven't practiced at all or only did so for a few years in big law. In a perfect world, one could not qualify to become a law professor until one had 10 years of full-time relevant experience in the field in which the professor is to teach. It's time to put an end to the nonsense of having inexperienced people teaching law school.
Devil's Advocate: Is the Law School turning out litigators or is it turning out legally trained professionals? I completely agree that when I went to law school (20+ years ago) that I was grateful for mandatory 1L full year of CivPro, Contracts, Property, Torts and semester of mandatory CrimLaw. 2L mandatory Evidence and ConLaw. But I wanted to be a lawyer, and a litigator at that. However my law school class had people who had no intention of being a lawyer. There were the people in the dual JD/PhD social sciences programs. There were the dual JD/MBAs who wanted legal training to take back to the business world.
I have no problem with law school instructors with no actual experience practicing law so long as they are not teaching courses on the practice of law.
'06 Boyd Grad here. I remember a professor getting up and telling us not to take bar classes as we would learn all we needed to know to pass the bar from barbri. He then went on to give examples of classes he took in law school. I remember one being French Tort Reform. What a douche.
Who was that douche?
I remember that. It was during orientation.
The world needs ditch diggers too.
https://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/342590-the-case-against-a-lower-bar-pass-score
Is frakking Tylernet down again?
The Best Lawyers officially released their Best Lawyers list this year and also their Lawyers of the Year. Search at https://www.bestlawyers.com/.
Since this is the most prestigious honor in the legal field, it will be interesting to see if it becomes a topic on this blog.
Do they have a hotornot section? No? Then probably not.
It is not the most prestigious honor. Chambers Legal Directory is the prime source used by institutional clients and general counsel as it does a thorough background and vetting of all those listed, including speaking with clients of the listed lawyers. It is not pay to play nor is it a good old boy network. Not bragging, but I have been listed in Best lawyers so this is not an axe to grind or sour grapes. Most sophisticated GCs put Best Lawyers slightly above Super Lawyers and the rest.
Chambers is a very good source too. Chambers and Best Lawyers are the only two that I would ever rely on. Super Lawyers used to be pretty reliable, but they seem to have started to open the door way too wide starting about three to five years ago, so I stopped using it as a source once they did that.
If I had to go one direction, I would look for Lawyers of the Year in Best Lawyers. You absolutely can't beat that, although that takes you down to probably the top 0.1% or so (my guess, not based on any actual data), so obviously going to Best Lawyers itself is going to give you what you need and give you a few options.
I would favor Best Lawyers over all of the rest. Chambers is good, but you have to apply in some way to have them look at you to list you. Best Lawyers has the best lawyers voting about other best lawyers, so those in the know vote you in or out. And if you look at the names of those who are in, it's a who's who.
I noticed that just about every attorney at every big firm in town was listed in Best Lawyers. If you work for Holland & Hart and you don't get nominated to Best Lawyers, do you immediately get the shaft?
Not the shaft; shown the door. As you note, "Best Lawyers has the best lawyers voting about other best lawyers." Yes so if your firm has 5 Best Lawyers, you get 5 times the nominations of the small firm Best Lawyer. Hence, it turns into BigLaw patting itself on the back. It isn't those in the know who vote you in or out; it is a good ol' boy network keeping it good ol' boy. There are very good lawyers on Best Lawyers. However the assertion that everyone on the list is deserving is a farce.
Agreed. The lawyers at the larger firms have an advantage, but I think their in-house votes barely count in the algorithm. The lawyers who get in from small firms are the ones with the biggest bragging rights. I agree with the above that Best Lawyers is the preeminent listing to be in. For what it's worth, I'm not in (yet), but plan to be soon.
When I worked at Bremer Whyte, the partners "strongly encouraged" us to vote for these kinds of lists.
Looks like one of the better "best of" lists i have seen. Didn't notice any 1st year attorneys
Naqvhi on there? Paying for advertising puts you at the top of the list.
Come on Grierson! 36 hours of a Motion sitting in Pending status? Is your staff on strike? Is your gerryrigged system broken again? For F***s sake.
I'm beginning to wonder if Grierson is getting a tremendous, yuuge, bigly kickback, because the new system f*****g sucks balls.
RJC is an utter shit hole. Judges, and batteries included.
Has anyone gone to the Judge's Meetings and discussed how bad the new system sucks for us commoners?
I'm not sure that many of them care what the lawyers think, although some of them may at least have the sense to at like they care. But they tend not to follow through on a concern voiced by many lawyers unless it is also something that would also benefit the judges.