I remember the first moments of law school as if they happened yesterday. Gerry Frug walked into Contracts, looked out us, and said nine words “Mister Golden, state the case in Hawkins v. McGee.” One hundred thirty nine 1Ls went weak with relief. Poor Mr. Golden began to read from the case. “Defendant’s motions for a nonsuit and for a directed verdict on the count in assumpsit were denied, and the defendant excepted . . . .”

Professor Frug stopped him. “Mr. Golden, can – you – speak – English?” Mr. Golden managed to get out a “yes” and Frug’s face lit up like a Christmas Tree. “Wonderful. So can I! Why don’t you start?”

Well, I did know to speak English. I had no choice. But here are five things that I wish I had known.

In my earlier post on the long running debate about the proper emphasis of legal education, I wanted to suggest that there is more of a symbiotic relationship between practice and preaching.
Focusing on one part of the issue, Bruce Boyden wonders what relevant experiences an eight year practitioner might have not yet hand. Bruce says that stayed at Big Law to the cusp of partnership and then decided to leave (probably adding to his long term happiness and that of his family). He says he was doing a lot of the things that partners do and writes: 

One observation was that the transition from associate to partner in a large law firm is a transition from a larger proportion of hands-on legal practice (writing and filing briefs, doing research, advising clients on the content of the law, marshaling evidence, even appearances in court) to a larger proportion of business management: managing resources (associates, staff, and other partners) and managing clients–keeping current clients happy and bringing in new clients

These “partner” duties, he suggests, are not, in some sense, the practice of law and may be better informed by an MBA program than a J.D. He asks what law professors who leave the practice short of this stage are missing. It’s a great question and is answered, I think, not so much in terms of what someone has “missed” but by a consideration of what others may have “gained.”