This week marks the final week of classes for the Fall semester at Vanderbilt Law. While students are currently toiling away outlining and preparing for exams, the end of the semester often makes me think of the new slate of classes ahead. Whether it was in college, graduate school, or law school, I always thoroughly enjoyed clicking through a course catalog and seeing the range of subjects that I could tackle. “You mean there’s one course on Russian history up to 1801 and then a whole separate course on Russian history since 1801?” While law school may not provide students the opportunity to jump between courses in economics, gender studies, and astronomy the same way one can in college, there are still scores of interesting classes, each of which provides an insight into a particular aspect of the law.
As I have mentioned before in this space, when working with students over the course of three years, I am often asked questions that go beyond basic matters of résumé format or cover letter content. One of the more frequent inquiries after the completion of 1L is “what classes should I take?”
There are two primary schools of thought when it comes to this question, with some overlap. The first is that students should take as many “core” classes as can fit into their schedules. These are the classes a non-lawyer would think of when conjuring up an image of the law school curriculum, e.g., Corporations, Tax, Evidence, Wills & Trusts, etc. Perhaps more importantly, these are also the subjects likely to be on the bar examination. The other line of thinking is that students should take what interests them. At the end of the day, it is their money — or really, all of our tax dollars doled out to students via a student loan system that is overwhelmingly federal . . . at least for now — so why sit through classes focusing on areas of the law which hold little interest to you, especially in a world where bar preparation courses exist?
On which side of this divide do I […]
The evidence pops up on a screen in front of the jury. Meeting with a lawyer is done via video conference. And court documents that used to be stored in boxes are on a flashdrive.
Technology advances in the practice of law are rapidly changing, and Long Island colleges and universities are adjusting their programs to prepare the more than 1,300 law students Islandwide.
Hofstra University has a high-tech mock courtroom and provides its students iPads on which they keep their legal arguments, evidence and other court documents. Students at the Touro Law Center are learning how to use artificial intelligence for electronic discovery, creating algorithms to sort digital data. Gabriella Malfi, 28, of Great Neck, a third-year law student, uses an iPad and screens in a mock courtroom to give arguments at Hofstra University on Nov. 19 in Hempstead. Photo Credit: Howard Schnapp “Technology is revolutionizing and changing the practice of law each and every day,” said Judge Gail Prudenti, dean of Hofstra’s Maurice A. Deane School of Law and executive director of the Center for Children, Families and the Law. “Firms are using technology more and more to become more efficient to save time and to save costs.”
Technology also is “helping to expand greatly access to legal services for those who cannot afford it — both those of modest means, as well as those who live below the poverty line,” Prudenti said.
Hofstra in early October offered its first one-day legal tech boot camp for students, discussing the role of technology in law and the skills needed in the workplace. The event touched on e-discovery, e-filing, e-billing, cybersecurity, e-research and the use of artificial intelligence and how it’s improving legal services.
The Hempstead-based, 853-student law school plans to offer the boot camp again next year and hopes to open it to the community, including law professionals. Get the Breaking News newsletter!
What you will study
The module explores the wider role of law in society and the international community by considering different legal systems and traditions. It considers civil law, common law and national systems and discusses the nature of legal obligations.
Having set the wider context the module then explores the nature and role of a justice system. This is done by consideration of criminal and civil justice systems, their role, purpose, operation and function. The key concepts of rights and responsibilities are explored by considering both criminal and civil liability. This is built on through a discussion of the provision of legal services and an exploration of the issues surrounding access to the justice. Case studies are used at intervals throughout the module to highlight the relevance and application of key principles.
The module ends by considering key concepts which underpin a range of legal thinking. This section of the module explores human rights, the international human rights framework, the relationship between law and morality and the philosophical foundations of the concept of justice. Here examples will be used to encourage reflection on practical situations. These subjects have been deliberately placed here to encourage you to think about the wider role played by law, its changing nature and impact.
Throughout the module you will explore the meaning of justice in a legal system, and the features of a just legal system. You will also be asked to think about the role and nature of the law and key legal concepts and the relationship between law and morality. Vocational relevance
The module develops vocationally-orientated skills that are transferable to the job market: good written and communication skills; reaching reasoned conclusions; critical thinking; ability to analyse, synthesise, reflect on and present arguments; and problem solving and evaluating issues. Professional recognition
If you are intending to use this module as part of the LLB, and you hope to enter the Legal Professions, you should read carefully the careers information on The Open University Law School website. There are different entry regulations into the legal professions in England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the […]
By Alexandra Sumner
When discussing the idea of dating during law school, the question is not: “Should you date someone while in law school?” It’s: “Should you even date someone who’s in law school?” No, probably not.
Law students (myself included) have the tendency to believe the entire world revolves around their three-year degree and that everyone — including significant others — should bend themselves around our tight schedule because, “We have it harder than you.”
I’ve seen more than a few law school relationship articles which encourage the non-law student to “just be sensitive” and “don’t expect a lot from him [or her] because they’re under a lot of pressure.” Articles that admonish displeased partners for wanting more than a high-five and a Hot Pocket on date night. Blurbs that decry the selfishness and greed of these non-legal lovers; how can they not understand time and energy it takes to read for torts? Why can’t they just understand that he didn’t have the time to text you all week because he was in class?
Look at me: Because it is a lie.
As much as I am drawn to hyperbole, even I can admit that we aren’t kept prisoner in the classroom. Our cellphones aren’t taken away and our brains aren’t removed and steeped in elitism. We have the time to text you back; the truth is we choose not to.
You should never let your significant other get away with inconsiderate or offensive behavior just because he or she is in law school. You have every right to hold them accountable for their actions, and you shouldn’t look over numerous excuses and missed plans. We’re not dead, just busy.
Think of it this way: if you’re dating someone who is treating you poorly now, how will your relationship suffer after that person becomes an attorney? How can you foresee a future with someone who doesn’t consider you a priority, and whose life is only going to advance in responsibility and stress levels? If he doesn’t have time for you now, when will he?
I’m going to say the thing all law students fear being said: […]
Jerome Greene Hall, the primary home of Columbia Law School. (Courtesy photo) Columbia Law School students are using a software program to create apps to help various legal organizations’ clients automate the drafting of legal documents. The project came after Columbia Law School Legal Technology Association, a student-led association seeking to expose members to the broad scope of legal technology, and HelpSelf Legal teamed up in the spring 2018 semester to offer HelpSelf’s document automation builder software for worthy causes. Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.
Benefits of a Digital Membership:
Free access to 5 articles* every 30 days
Access to the entire ALM network of websites
Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
Search by a wide range of topics
Harvard Law School Pipeline Parity Project Celebrates Another Change to Controversial Law Firm Policies
Harvard Law School Library The Pipeline Parity Project — a Harvard Law School student group that has pushed law firms to remove controversial arbitration policies — celebrated again Friday after the firm Kirkland & Ellis announced it was removing the mandatory agreements for all of its employees.
The decision comes after the student group began pressuring Kirkland & Ellis — the world’s highest-grossing law firm — to remove the agreements last month. Almost three weeks ago, the firm announced it was ending the policy for associates, but it remained in place for non-associate employees.
Mandatory arbitration agreements require employees to settle disputes through a private arbiter rather than bringing their concerns to the courts. The Pipeline Parity Project claims these contracts “silence victims of sexual harassment, assault, and discrimination,” according to their website.
In an interview last week, Pipeline Parity Project Member and second-year Law student Alexandra “Vail” Kohnert-Yount said that though the firm had dropped its mandatory agreements for associates, the group continued its efforts to convince Kirkland & Ellis to drop the agreements for all employees.
“The Kirkland campaign is sort of ongoing because they haven’t actually dropped forced arbitration for their no-lawyer staff — they haven’t totally capitulated either,” Kohnert-Yount said last week.
With Friday’s announcement, Kohnert-Yount commended the changes in a statement posted to the Pipeline Parity Project’s website.
“We’re glad that firms like Kirkland & Ellis and Sidley Austin are doing the right thing by dropping forced arbitration for all of their employees, not just the ones with law degrees,” Vail Kohnert-Yount said, referencing another firm that also changed their policy recently.
She added that she hopes the firm will consider not using arbitration on behalf of their clients.
“Hopefully, the lawyers at these firms will also consider their moral responsibility not to enforce these types of coercive contracts on behalf of their clients as well, because it’s obvious that forced arbitration impedes access to justice,” Kohnert-Yount said in the statement.A spokesperson for Kirkland & Ellis did not respond to a question asking whether the firm decided to drop the agreements after pressure from the Pipeline Parity Project.The group’s advocacy around Kirkland […]