The arithmetic of (legal) reading and writing
26 October 2009 • Ricardo J. Bascuas • 10 Comments » • Tags: NoneI haven’t seen this announced anywhere else, but I’m assuming that by now everyone has heard that Legal Research and Writing is getting a long-discussed revamp. Apparently, we’re moving to a system of permanent instructors rather than the cadre of adjuncts we now have. The upshot is that the students will get more individualized attention at a lower cost to the Law School because we’re going to make these instructors work ’round-the-clock or something. I don’t know. I wasn’t taking notes or anything at the faculty meeting. (I know, I know. Two big decisions announced in one faculty meeting!) All I know is that we are assured that everything is going to be better, and I take comfort in that thought.
Honestly, I don’t really know much about how LRW works now, much less about how it ought to work. But if it were up to me, we would put a bunch of nuns on the payroll to teach advanced sentence diagramming and literary interpretation for an entire semester because that’s the only way anyone is ever going to understand how important words are to the profession. Right now, we have students writing briefs whose primary and secondary schools made little if any effort to teach them how the various parts of speech work—and who actually want to learn this. I can’t tell you how many students have asked me over the past few years to recommend a book on English grammar. You know what would be fun? To teach a course on Legal Writing and Interpretation open to undergraduates and law students where you make them do things like explain the Court’s handling of race in Terry v. Ohio in terms of usage and literary devices. The opinion is far more interesting as rhetoric than as law. (True fact: students at UM invariably intuit that Terry is black, even though no opinion in the case says so; the students I taught as a visitor at DU were surprised to learn this.)
There’s nothing wrong with Strunk and White; it’s still relevant after, oh, about 100 years. Also, add Garner’s Elements of Legal Style to the required reading list.
You really should have been paying attention at the Faculty Meeting. What you should have heard was that in exchange for the promise of a potentially hire ranking in U.S. News & World Report, the Dean arrived at the law school vowing to dismantle the LRW program before even meeting with the head of the program or a single instructor. In replacing a faculty that currently consists of a federal judge, partners at major law firms, veterans from the County Attorney’s Office and the U.S. Attorney’s Office etc., students will be taught by non-tenure track, full-time attorneys at a very low salary. By definition, the new faculty will not be actually practicing law. In this economy where the law students are struggling to find work, this was a huge decision that is going to have quite an impact. And if you think students are deficient in writing and grammar, you should see them first semester in the three months the existing LRW faculty spends correcting and teaching. Diagramming and literary interpretation? Good luck with that.
I regret waiting to read Strunk & White until I started practicing. Now I keep a copy w/ me at all time and whenever I’m waiting in court, I read a couple pages and learn something new.
Bryan Garner’s book on persuading judges likewise contains top-notch material, if you can stomach Scalia’s big mug staring back at you.
“Hire” ranking! Good luck with THAT. Haha!
AUS Attorneys (or former ones) should not be permitted to teach LRW. They Suck. Also, they are so freakin used to having their way in Federal Court, when they actually have to write a persuasive piece, they fail miserably because of their freakish reliance on declaratory statements and attacks on the opposing side.
A-Holes
Glad to hear that the program will be revamped. The summer associates we’ve had from UM have had horrible research and writing skills. It is almost a given fact in the legal community — with few exceptions, UM law graduates don’t write well.
I’m a product of the UM LRW program, and my prof, a Assistant County Attorney who’s still with the office, was the single most helpful individual in my 1L year. He took time aside to make sure our small group learned the material, offered helpful critiques on written material, and guided us through the spring 1L moot court competition. When other UM professors were busy trying to emulate characters from law-school novels, my LRW prof took his job seriously, and made sure I had the writing-and-research skills to hold my own during my internships at the AG’s and SA’s offices in later semesters.
At UM, my experience with practitioners (LRW, lit skills, the few classes taught by adjuncts) was universally superior than my experience with tenured professors (first-year courses, most notably elements).
I’m not arguing to banish the more philosophical members of the faculty; rather, I think the philosophers would be well suited to being surrounded by practitioners.
yeah the problem is not the adjunct professors. The problem is the Stotz. They need to get rid of Stotz at all costs.
“Right now, we have students writing briefs whose primary and secondary schools made little if any effort to teach them how the various parts of speech work—and who actually want to learn this.”
I think the problem is every so slightly bigger than you might think. It’s not only students who struggle to write coherently. You may have already seen the complaint one of your colleagues actually filed in the Southern District. If not, it’s definitely worth a quick read.
http://abovethelaw.com/2009/11/03/Jones%20v%20Minkin%20complaint%20Donald%20Jones%20David%20Minkin%20David%20Lat%20Dead%20Horse%20Media.pdf
I’m all for improvement, but I disagree with the general premise that good LRW programs make good writers. Frankly I think that misses the point. A good LRW class should introduce students to the basics of research, “objective” and persuasive legal writing, structure, proper citation, and, yes, basic grammar, usage, and style. But that’s all it can really offer to students. Regardless of whether the LRW program is considered “good,” it is the student who must ultimately learn to write well. It takes years. Therefore, in response to 10:46, don’t expect much of a change. It’s not a cause-and-effect kind of thing.