PROFESSOR DRESSLER SPEAKS ABOUT:

1. PROBLEMS IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION

2. THE BEST PREPARATION FOR LAW SCHOOL

Date: Fri, 18 Aug 95 15:25:49 PST
From: Joshua Dressler
Reply-To: prelaw-l@vax1.elon.edu
Subject: Re: Problems in the legal profession

First, an explanation and possible apology. I am a professor of law (20 years, gulp, this semester). I joined this list last week, out of curiousity, to see if it would interest me, and I could be of any value. The first post since I joined is this one. Thus, I am an interloper, of sorts, and clearly one who is unaware of everything that has come before.

Nonetheless, I agree so much with what is said here --- the importance of having students come to law school with a strong background -- that I wanted to chime in just a little....

Here goes:

"1) What are some of the real flaws that are prevalent in legal practitioners and in our system of law?"

For me, this is much too broad a question to answer here, especially as it relates to the "system of law." Is the adversary system a good or bad idea. My father, who was a sociologist, condemned it as "trial by combat." I am less certain that this is fair, but it is clear that the adversary system invites some of the attitudes described in the original message, including the idea that, if litigation is war, then why talk about ethics (ethical warfare is oxymoronis), or (at least) let's talk about ethics in a very limited context.

Indeed, I am convinced that the law (thus, law school) attracts certain types of people in disproportionate numbers. I want to mention only two right now. Many people (especially among males) come with a very aggressive attitude; they love the idea of trial by combat. They can make a living, feed their ego, and meet their needs for aggression is a lawful manner. (Often, these people also see Power and Money and Law as interrelated in a symbiotic manner.)

Many people come to the law because of deep feelings of conscience and social concern. They see the law as a great way to struggle for Justice, as they deem that concept. Of course, these people are very different in their goals than the first group. Oftern, however, they have the same temperament. They question authority, feel very deeply, and have a any-means-to-a-good-end view. Others, however, are conscientiously, deeply, on all levels, and thus they are sometimes put off by what they experience from their colleagues in law school and later as lawyers. I wish this were not so -- especially, because they are the people with whom I feel most comfortable.

"2) Do you agree that many of these problems can most effectively be addressed at the undergraduate level (perhaps by prelaw advisors)?"

I would like to say -- and a part of me still believes -- that we should try to get undergraduate students to see the importance of ethical behavior in life, and thus in the law, and not leave the matter to law schools. I am cynical enough to believe, however, that the law will continue to attract the people described above, and to the extent that we are dealing with win-at-all-costs people, the best that can be done is for them to learn that they run certain risks if they cross ethical boundaries.

But, I will tell you where I think the undergraduate is MOST critical. It is in providing students with a strong liberal arts background. Thus, this is for colleges, and not pre-law advisors per se (except in directing them in terms of courses), to do.... I have a criminal law casebook used by many law schools. On the Dedication page, I start with a Joseph Story quote:

"But the student shold not imagine, that enough is done, if he has so far mastered the general doctrines of the common law, that he may enter with some confidence into practice. There are other studies, which demand his attention. He should addict himself to the study of philosophty, of rhetoric, of history, and of human nature. It is from the want of this enlarged view of duty that the profession has sometimes been reproached . . . with a deficiency in liberal and enlightened policy."

In short, too many lawyers have a narrow view of what it means to be a lawyer, with a narrow view of the sources of the law, and for understanding the law. But, more to the point, too many law STUDENTS come in with a narrow view, and even if law teachers try to broaden their perspective, they will often fail to grasp what we are trying to do, for want of a narrow undergraduate background.

One of my colleagues and I were talking today about the fact that students from private, liberal arts backgrounds come into our classes so much better prepared to put the law in context, to underestand historical, literary, etc. allusions, and to participate WILLINGLY in the process of thinking about the law as an academic discipline, and not simply as a profession.

The more done below to make them see the law as something living, something exciting, the more open they will be for learning here, and the better prepared they will be.
Best wishes...

Professor Joshua Dressler
McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific