Brian Leiter's Law School Reports

If this report is correct, then everyone should boycott the Harvard Law Review

Is this for real? 

[Harvard Law Review] Editors complained that a piece had cited "A LOT of old white men," attempted to guess whether a scholar was "Latina," complained that an author was "not from an underrepresented background," and praised an article for citing "predominantly Black singers, rappers, and members of Twitter."

Another article was recommended, in part, because "it cites a Kendrick song in the Conclusion!"....

While some editors recommended pieces on the grounds that the author was a minority, others paid more attention to the article’s footnotes, combing through the citations to see how many sources were white, black, or transgender.

"The author cited 20 men by name," Leah Smith, who graduated Harvard Law School in May, wrote of one article, but only "9 women and 1 non-binary scholar."

Everyone knows student editors don't know what they're doing (which is why it's good they consult more now with faculty*), but this is really a new low.

*Some student-edited law reviews can't even do faculty-consultations in a professional way.  In one case (involving a very prominent law review, not Harvard or Chicago), I was given the usual 48 hours to give my opinion.  I did:  the article, I noted, was "sophomoric" and "not publishable," and I gave some explanation.  The journal accepted the article for publication.  The author was a faculty member at that school.  My assessment was, in fact, correct.

 

Law schools should oppose an ABA proposal to double the experiential learning credits from 6 to 12

The ABA is up to mischief again, which needs to be opposed for the sake of law students.  Here's what I wrote the last time this awful idea was being floated:

 

Law schools differ, in their student bodies, in their employment outcomes.  Law students differ, in their personal and professional goals, and in their intellectual interests.  There should be a very strong presumption against any proposal of the form that, "200 law schools, and 40,000 law students all must do X."  I have written letters of recommendation for and advised many students have gone on to the most competitive federal appellate court clerkships in the United States, both when I was at Texas and since moving to Chicago in 2008.  The judges often tell the students they hire in their second year what they expect them to do during their remaining time in law school.  Not once have I heard of a circuit court judge who demanded that the student take more "experiential learning" courses.  To the contrary, they want their clerks to take Federal Courts, Administrative Law, sometimes Criminal Procedure, sometimes Securities Regulation (it often depends on the circuit):  in other words, they want their students to have deeper and broader knowledge of legal doctrine.

 

So, too, with the former students who have gone on to the leading private law firms, both the Cravaths and Skaddens, as well as the Bartlit Becks and Susman Godfreys of the world.  What these employers want to know is:  how smart is this student?  how good is her writing?  In twenty years, no hiring partner ever asked me, "How many experiential courses did this student take?"

 

I have taught fabulous students over the last twenty years, and there is no reason legal education should be designed around them and their employers.  But there is also no reason legal education should be designed without regard for them.   Forcing most of these students to do fifteen [or twelve] hours of experiential classes would not have made any of them, I venture, worse, but it would not have given most of them any real benefit.  Some of them would have been forced to drop some of the advanced commercial law classes, or the advanced procedure classes they might have taken.  Those doing JD/PhDs--and, yes, they are students too!--would have had to take classes that would have contributed nothing to their academic work and careers.

 

And then there is the reality that no law school in the United States that I am aware of is actually equipped to offering "experiential" learning adequate to the full range of careers lawyers actually pursue.    Suppose a student wants to pursue a career in corporate and partnership tax.  How many law schools offer meaningful "experiential" learning for that?  Suppose some do; how many could realistically?  Suppose a student wants to go into high-stakes M&A litigation.  Which law schools offer meaningful experiential litigation to that end?  How many could outside those in a few major cities?  I have a relative who went to a top law school and works in a thriving field, health law, with a focus on regulatory compliance.  Her most valuable "experiential" course in law school was contract drafting, and there was no clinical offering that would have been of any use to her; I've yet to see a law school that was different....

 

I am utterly unmoved by what schools for dentists, animal doctors, nurses, etc. require.  The comparison betrays a profound misunderstanding of the law.  Oxford's H.L.A. Hart, the greatest legal philosopher of the last century, noted that you can not understand law and legal systems unless you realize that they centrally involve  rules.  His critics, like the late legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin, drew attention to the fact that how lawyers reason and argue about rules is just as important.  Both Hart and Dworkin highlight the crucial fact about lawyering that distinguishes it from dentistry:  law is fundamentally a discursive discipline, dealing in norms, arguments, and reasons.  That is why legal education, in both the United States and Europe and every other democracy I am aware of, emphasizes learning legal rules and legal reasoning.  One needs a lot of knowledge to be a good dentist, to be sure, but a lot of good dentistry is not a matter of knowing rules and how to reason about them.

 

As Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller aptly remarked on Twitter:

The Section of Legal Education & Admissions has been captured by a small interest group relentless in its demands for a particular, & more expensive, form of legal education. It now demands: -12 (not 6) experiential units -at least 3 in field or clinic -1L doesn't count.

This is not about quality legal education, this is about armchair judgments about legal education combined with self-serving proposals by those who teach experiential courses.

UPDATE: A reader calls my attention to this apt observation in a letter from dozens of law school Deans concerning another bit of unwarranted ABA meddling:

We believe that these proposals are part of a recent trend of the ABA Council to try and exercise greater regulatory control over law schools. As deans, we urge greater restraint in this regard and urge that there be new regulation only if needed to solve a demonstrated problem supported by evidence and only if it is clear that any changes would not have adverse consequences on legal education.

If this continues--and the proposed doubling of experiential credits will be the straw that breaks the camel's back--then law schools will, en masse, have to pressure the federal government to allow other accreditors for U.S. law schools.

ANOTHER:  See the comments by Dan Rodriguez, former Dean at Northwestern (and San Diego).

Federal district court in DC permanently enjoins Trump's executive order against Perkins Coie

Here.  I assume this will survive on appeal, if they even bother to appeal.  This makes the capitulation of Paul Weiss, Kirkland, Skadden Arps et al. even more embarassing.

Advice to law firms in dealing with Trump: do not negotiate!

Sensible advice from Sheila Heen, a professor of practice and negotiation expert at Harvard Law School:   Download Negotiation Strategy Notes for Law Firms Heen April 12 2025.  Good advice for universities too!  

(Thanks to Richard Bales for the pointer.)

Susman Godfrey responds the way all honorable law firms should to Trump's unlawful threats

Here: 

Anyone who knows Susman Godfrey knows we believe in the rule of law, and we take seriously our duty to uphold it. This principle guides us now. There is no question that we will fight this unconstitutional order.

It looks like the "Skadden Fellow" brand is now tarnished after the firm's capitulation to Trump...

...in the opinion of hundreds of former Skadden Fellows.

Letter from Harvard Law faculty about the "rule of law"

Here.  Some unsurprising names are absent from the letter (e.g., Adrian Vermeule).

Here's a federal judge who might be an actual candidate for impeachment...

...and he was, of course, nominated by Trump.

Paul Weiss capitulates...

...to "the mob boss," while Williams & Connolly defends Perkins Coie.  Paul Weiss has disgraced itself, and Williams & Connolly, along with Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling, are the clear destinations of choice for the best law students who believe in the rule of law.

Covington & Perkins Coie should now be the top choices for the best law students...

...in light of Trump's abuse of executive power to target those firms.