|
|
Legal education has been under attack from inside and outside the legal profession for any number of years. But with the recent economic crunch and the lack of jobs, one of the targets is the Socratic method. One of the more recent attacks came in a blog post at the Chronicle of Higher Education, where two lawyers argue that continued use of the Socratic method in law schools is “indefensible.” From my standpoint, though, law school needs the Socratic method, at least for first year students.
In law schools, the Socratic method involves the professor asking a student (rarely a volunteer) questions about a particular case, principle or rule. The progression of questions tends to lead down a path of analysis to a seemingly reasonable conclusion. Then you’re likely to get a question that changes the facts slightly, a change that may challenge, if not shatter, the assumptions on which your position is based. By finding yourself on the end of the tree branch, you begin to understand and learn how to recognize what led you there. (For fairly accurate though sometimes extreme examples, watch a couple episodes of The Paper Chase.)
The blog post says practicing lawyers consider the Socratic method “a hazing ritual, a rite of passage that fosters camaraderie among members of the bar.” Sorry, but as a practicing lawyer of nearly 29 years, I’ve never viewed it that way. To me and many others, what the Socratic method does is teach you how to “think like a lawyer.” It helps you learn how to identify and examine the many potential aspects of legal problems that will arise in the real world. I believe that unless or until your mind gets that training, you lack much capacity to assess and address the problems and pitfalls a client may face. That’s why I think it’s absolutely necessary for first year law students.
The blog post contends the critical thinking skills can be taught “more effectively” through more practical efforts, such as legal writing, mock trials or clinical legal work. I agree law school needs more emphasis on “practice skills.” But nuts and bolts skills aren’t worth as much if you can’t recognize you’re taking your client to the end of a tree branch. In fact, even the report the authors cite in support of teaching more “practice ready” skills never suggests abandoning the Socratic method.
I can vouch for the fact that being on the “hot seat” during a law school class can be distressing, especially if you are unprepared. At the same time, it focuses the brain on analysis and the ramifications of your assumptions and positions.
A lawyer’s not a person who knows the law; a lawyer is a person who’s learned how to find the law that’s needed in a given situation. And also how to read it, a correlative that some lawyers overlook, to the sorrow of their clients.
George Higgins, Sandra Nichols Found Dead
Interesting Reading in the Interweb Tubes
- You’re Richer Than You Think (“… we struggle to pay for the lifestyles we think we deserve when billions struggle to live. The inconvenient truth is that most of us have more than we need and spend more than we should.”)
- Happiness and Its Discontents (“[We can] feel so anxious about feeling anxious that when we catch ourselves getting a little stirred up, a little excited, even in a good way, we end up suppressing our feelings because we fear that our ardor might deliver us straight into the lair of … anxiety.”)
- Fifty States of Fear (“The interesting thing about the security measures that are taken today is that they provide, as [Erik} Prince puts it, the ‘illusion of security’; another way to put it is that they provide ‘security theater.’ Or perhaps it is actually a theater of fear.”)
Blog Headline of the Week
Most Unusual Medical Finding of the Week
Most Interesting Study of the Week
- Whether death row inmate accepts last meal and how much they eat may be indicator of guilt or innocence
Bookish Linkage
Nonbookish Linkage
A life spent at one’s desk is a life alone.
Donna Tartt, Nov. 14, 2013
The debt incurred and lack of jobs may not be the only reason law schools have seen plummeting enrollment. Being a lawyer now ranks 51st in the annual U.S. News & World Report rankings of the 100 best jobs. And the methodology used for the rankings may give practicing law a boost.
So what’s better than being a lawyer? Computer and health care jobs dominate the top 10, with software developer at the top. Part of this is because job prospects, growth rate and employment rate account for 60 percent of the scoring in the methodology. Among the 40 other jobs ranking higher than lawyer were massage therapist, 27; skin care specialist (which I didn’t know is called an esthetician), 29; maintenance worker, 32; high school teacher, 40; medical equipment repairer, 47; nail technician, 49; and middle school teacher, 50.
Here’s why I think the methodology may help lawyering’s rank. As noted, a majority of the scoring considers job prospects and the like, something that hurts the legal profession. But median salary is the single largest component at 30 percent. At $113,000, the median salary for lawyers is twice that of the highest paying of the seven jobs above (high school teacher) and nearly six times that of the lowest (nail technician).
Moreover, the lowest components in the scoring are stress and work-life balance at five percent each. U.S. News observes that lawyers rank high (the worst score possible) in stress level and below average (the next to worst score) in flexibility. If those qualitative life factors are considered more important in defining one’s “best” job, lawyers certainly move down in the rankings.
But, with no offense intended, at least I’m not a professional painter (not the artistic kind). It took last.
The lawyers—tell me why a hearse horse snickers hauling a lawyer’s bones.
Carl Sandburg, “The Lawyers Know Too Much”
South Dakota’s far from the intersection of intellectual property rights and modern technology. But that doesn’t keep it from being involved with national issues on the subject, even if somewhat extraneously.
Last week a leading blog on copyright trolls urged readers to contact Secretary of State Jason Gant. The reason? Seems Crystal Bay Corporation, incorporated in South Dakota in March 2012, was delinquent in filing its annual report. The company filed it yesterday but there’s still the question of why those keeping tabs on copyright trolls would care. Turns out the company is a shelf corporation that is assisting the trolls.
Copyright trolls use several variations but the most basic is that they file a lawsuit against a number of “John Does” (thousands have been sued around the country) claiming they used BitTorrent to download material to which the troll has the copyright. Someone like Darren M. Griffin, a Crystal Bay “software consultant,” provides an affidavit detailing how the internet protocol (IP) addresses assigned to the computers allegedly used to download the material and the time of download were ascertained. (Griffin is a software consultant with other companies, which may or may not be shelf corporations.) The troll asks the court to issue subpoenas to internet service providers to identify what subscribers had the hundreds of IP addresses. If the troll gets that information, letters go out to those people telling them they can avoid a expense and danger of a lawsuit if they settle now. Many of the lawsuits involve porn films, giving rise to the implied, if not express, suggestion that unless the person settles the allegation they downloaded a porn film will become public knowledge.
Among the many problems with these efforts is that an IP address doesn’t establish who was using it. It could be anyone with access to the computer or if the subscriber has a wireless network anyone who was using it, even a neighbor or hacker taking advantage of an insecure network. There are even some claims that the trolls made some of the porn films available on BitTorrent. Fortunately, a number of ISPs, including Midcontinent, have fought these subpoenas and courts throughout the country are taking note. One prominent troll industry entity, Prenda Law, has been slammed with sanctions and referred to state and federal prosecutors for what one judge called “cottage-industry lawsuits” it brought on behalf of alleged copyright holders.
As Cory detailed shortly after Crystal Bay was formed, it is one of many shelf corporations located in Madison formed by David DeLoach, a disbarred attorney in Dana Point, Calif. Crystal Bay’s articles of incorporation show its offices at 110 E Center St., Ste. 2053 in Madison. The annual report filed this week lists the same address but adds that a “Peter Kurtz” is the company president but no other officers or directors. And where would you contact Mr. Kurtz? You guessed it — his address is 110 E Center St., Ste. 2053.
It appears most, if not all, of the other South Dakota corporations DeLoach formed share the identical address. Yet given the significant number of shelf corporations he’s formed, I doubt DeLoach himself is involved in the copyright troll business. But the building at that address appears to be a popular one for out-of-staters. It’s also the location of one of the many actual South Dakota companies that provide the services RVers and the like need to establish South Dakota residency.
…copyright locusts have descended on the federal courts, exacting low-cost settlements from embarrassed John Does and then moving on to the next [court].
U.S. District Judge Harold Baer, Jr.,
Media Products, Inc. v. John Does 1-26
Interesting Reading in the Interweb Tubes
Blog Headline of the Week
Lawsuit of the Week
- A pimp convicted of stomping on a customer’s face is suing Nike for failing to warn him that the shoes could constitute a dangerous weapon
- A 26-year-old man is suing the maker of Close-up toothpaste, saying its ads are false and deceptive because it hasn’t helped him attract women with fresh smelling breath
Woo-woo of the Week
Bookish Links
Nonbookish Linkage
We can’t all, and some of us don’t. That’s all there is to it.
Eeyore, A.A. Milne, Winnie-the-Pooh
|
Disclaimer 
Additionally, some links on this blog go to Amazon.com. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. There is no additional cost to you. Contact me You can e-mail me at prairieprogressive at gmaildotcom.
|
