Marquette Law School is pleased to host the Association of Legal Writing Directors (ALWD) 2013 Biennial Conference from June 26-28. The conference is titled “Doing It Our Way”: Learning from Our Programmatic Differences and Similarities. Approximately 170 faculty representing 99 schools are attending. Just before the conference is an Innovative Teaching Workshop, and after the conference the Legal Writing Institute (LWI) is hosting a writers’ workshop in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin.
One of the things I noticed during my semester as an exchange student at the University of Copenhagen is how much legal education in Europe differs from the approach taken by law schools in the United States. The most drastic difference is, without a doubt, the way in which classes are conducted. In U.S. law schools, most professors use the Socratic method and the call system that law students have come to fear. In contrast, in many continental European law schools, courses are taught simply through lectures. On rare occasions a student will interject with a comment or a question, and on other rare occasions a professor will ask for voluntary input from the class, but for the most part, the professor is the only one who speaks. I have sometimes wondered whether a non-Socratic method of teaching adequately prepares students to be effective lawyers. American law students are forced to take a position on the law, make arguments for it, and apply it to the facts. By being subjected to the Socratic method, we are forced to think on our feet and be prepared for any questions that may be thrown at us by a judge, a client, or a fellow attorney. Arguing a position is one of the most important lawyering skills in both litigation and transactional practices. Therefore, teaching these skills would seem to be a valuable part of legal education anywhere in the world.
Given this apparent superiority of Socratic legal education, I have often wondered whether European law students feel they are at somewhat of a disadvantage. After all, they are not being challenged in class on a daily basis to make arguments and defend positions. I was surprised to learn that many European law students do not believe they are left behind in this respect. Many European students I have met say that classes are meant simply to teach about the law. If students wish to develop their litigation skills, they take a litigation class or join a moot court team, but there is generally no cross-over between developing one’s ability to argue and learning about the law. That is, up until the final exam. Interestingly, many law courses here in Copenhagen administer an oral final, where the professor challenges each student’s ability to argue about the law. Effectively, such an exam tests the students’ skills in taking a position on an issue and defending it. The way European law students view it is that they spend the semester learning about the law, and they then argue the law in the exams. Generally, they seem to feel this provides enough practice of argumentative skills.
“I consider you and [Jefferson] as the North and South Poles of the American Revolution. Some talked, some rewrote, and some fought to promote and establish it, but you and Mr. Jefferson thought for us all.”
—Benjamin Rush to John Adams, February 17, 1812
Every law student has a responsibly to enhance the American Conversation—the eternal dialogue that is the American experiment. While it would be conceited and with reproach that I suggest we think like Messrs. Adams and Jefferson, we should, however, seek to become more thoughtful and attempt to engage in lively, educated discourse. Our national dialogue has increasingly been filled with a self-destructive, dysfunctional, do-nothing mentality that lacks reasoned thought. This trend is at best unproductive—at worst, destructive—to the American Conversation. As law students, we have the skills and responsibility to change this trend.
It is quite gratifying to obtain a deep understanding of a topic and then learn that you lacked a full appreciation for some of the more nuanced issues within that particular topic. Part of the legal learning process encapsulates this type of learning, where you learn a new approach or different perspective and it can—and should—be learned outside the classroom. It should go without saying that one the best places to learn is outside the classroom. But as law students, in the ultra-competitive school environment, we tend to focus on grades (and the job hunt) and lose focus of the big picture—developing the skills necessary to fulfill our duty to serve the public. As such, we would do well to be reminded of the importance of using the skills we have learned outside the classroom. While Dean Kearney reminds us to continue learning outside the classroom (e.g., in the many guest lectures, at On The Issues, and during social and award events at the Law School), the one place for learning that should continually reside in a predominant place in our minds is the Zilber Forum, a social area for discussion and contemplation. The Zilber Forum, or the idea of the Forum, does not and should not stay within the confines of the four walls (although the shape of the building may suggest three). This idea is already bursting at the seams of Eckstein Hall and with a little help from students will reach the community around us.