Online Law School?

The one thing that is always striking about lawyers to me is how so many fail to see something in any context other than legal. Got a philosophical question? The supreme court defined that particular issue in case XYZ. Got a moral question? Well, you could argue based on precedent and statute that the answer is that it is OK or not OK. To me it seems, for most people, to be severely limiting, and to raise the art of thinking, analyzing and arguing no higher than a simple search for a textual interpretation telling you that you hold the correct view of the world. More than any other profession, I feel it destroys intellectual curiosity and replaces it with an extreme belief that what is good or right can be found in a decision made by a man, or group of men, in a black robe.

Obviously, Huntsman, I don't figure this will happen to you, and it certainly does not happen to every lawyer, but it is a disease that seems to afflict a huge number of them. Of course, this is apart from the leech like attitude that Gnatty describes. Sorry to anybody I have offended, but I had to get it off of my chest.

^It might be argued, cynically, that our society as a whole puts little value on intellectual curiosity and complex reasoning, and that for many lawyers, the approach they learn in law school doesn't replace the art of thinking so much as becomes the only one they've ever known.

Originally Posted by iammatt

Click to expand...

The one thing that is always striking about lawyers to me is how so many fail to see something in any context other than legal. Got a philosophical question? The supreme court defined that particular issue in case XYZ. Got a moral question? Well, you could argue based on precedent and statute that the answer is that it is OK or not OK. To me it seems, for most people, to be severely limiting, and to raise the art of thinking, analyzing and arguing no higher than a simple search for a textual interpretation telling you that you hold the correct view of the world. More than any other profession, I feel it destroys intellectual curiosity and replaces it with an extreme belief that what is good or right can be found in a decision made by a man, or group of men, in a black robe.

Obviously, Huntsman, I don't figure this will happen to you, and it certainly does not happen to every lawyer, but it is a disease that seems to afflict a huge number of them. Of course, this is apart from the leech like attitude that Gnatty describes. Sorry to anybody I have offended, but I had to get it off of my chest.

+100. You have probably seen me post about this almost every time we get an attorney into a conversation about anything regarding a non-law topic.

Originally Posted by iammatt

Click to expand...

The one thing that is always striking about lawyers to me is how so many fail to see something in any context other than legal. Got a philosophical question? The supreme court defined that particular issue in case XYZ. Got a moral question? Well, you could argue based on precedent and statute that the answer is that it is OK or not OK. To me it seems, for most people, to be severely limiting, and to raise the art of thinking, analyzing and arguing no higher than a simple search for a textual interpretation telling you that you hold the correct view of the world. More than any other profession, I feel it destroys intellectual curiosity and replaces it with an extreme belief that what is good or right can be found in a decision made by a man, or group of men, in a black robe.

I agree with you. Being a lawyer has ruined my ability to think outside of a legal context. Law school doesn't teach you law. It teaches you to think in a certain manner. I think most of us who graduate law school have a difficult time turning off that switch when we are in the real world. I know I struggle with it. I'm sure it can be frustrating for non-lawyers dealing with us. However, I get equally frustrated with people who think in similar way. For instance, those who believe the world runs according to theories from an econ textbook.

Originally Posted by zbromer

Click to expand...

I think most of us who graduate law school have a difficult time turning off that switch when we are in the real world.
The what now?

Originally Posted by Huntsman

Click to expand...

2) Law school is not that hard, intrinsically. There is a lot of study, writing and research, but if you can think in the appropriate manner, it 's not hard, not in the sense that advanced mathematics is just hard.
Personally, I think tax law is just hard. But it's also very enjoyable for me, so it's totally worth it.

Originally Posted by Iammatt

Click to expand...

The one thing that is always striking about lawyers to me is how so many fail to see something in any context other than legal. Got a philosophical question? The supreme court defined that particular issue in case XYZ. Got a moral question? Well, you could argue based on precedent and statute that the answer is that it is OK or not OK.
Good reason to mandatorily introduce people to philosophy in the latter years of high school. I find that all the phil courses I took not only allow for greater perspective but actually help me understand law from a policy perspective first rather than defaulting to rule worship like a lot of people seem to. That being said I definitely fall into the pattern you mentioned, probably owing to oversaturation more than anything else. It's all I do all day so it's probably understandable that it's the first place my mind is tuned to going nowadays, though that first inclination doesn't mean law students are generally incapable of thinking in other ways.

Originally Posted by JD_May

Click to expand...

Good reason to mandatorily introduce people to philosophy in the latter years of high school. I find that all the phil courses I took not only allow for greater perspective but actually help me understand law from a policy perspective first rather than defaulting to rule worship like a lot of people seem to. That being said I definitely fall into the pattern you mentioned, probably owing to oversaturation more than anything else. It's all I do all day so it's probably understandable that it's the first place my mind is tuned to going nowadays, though that first inclination doesn't mean law students are generally incapable of thinking in other ways.

From an outside, internet only, perspective, you seem to do OK.

Originally Posted by 83glt

Click to expand...

This is all total ******* bullshit. I take it your definition of "respectable position" is a narrow one? As are your definitions of "pedigree" and "good law school". Nice perpetuation of the elitism you alluded to.
Well, I took his comments to be descriptive rather than normative.

Originally Posted by 83glt

Click to expand...

What I find puzzling is the insistence among the legal community, particularly law students and recent grads, that a "good job" can only be found at a big law firm. People talk of "**** law". I can't imagine anything more **** than years of document review as an associate at a big law firm, even if it pays very well. How is this intellectually stimulating or challenging work? My gripe is with the myth that a "good job" is only found in big law. I think what people mean to say is simply that the best paying jobs are at big law. Sure, there may be some out there who have convinced themselves that transactional work is interesting, but I'd wager that if it didn't pay what it does, the competition would evaporate.

There's some truth in what you say. But I think that often the context of the discussion is about newly-minted lawyers hoping for a position where they can begin to find their way in the profession, get exposed to some interesting work, make a reliable income, not immediately face the necessity of generating independent business, and get some hands-on training with some support and resources behind them. That mix of factors is most easily found in established law firms or government jobs, which are much easier to find with a degree from a well-regarded school. Doesn't mean there aren't other viable options, of course.
Litigation is the only legal work I've ever really been interested in, and transactional work doesn't appeal to me. But there's definitely interesting, challenging, and rewarding transactional work out there for people who are drawn to it.

Originally Posted by Huntsman

Click to expand...

Hey I'm going for law starting August. I like to think that I am principled. I hope to corrupt the profession by spreading them around. So there are a few....



Feeling older and tired was one of the reasons I'm going for law. A doctorate in Engineering is just not going to happen, I'm too old and I don't want to work that hard ever again.



2) Law school is not that hard, intrinsically. There is a lot of study, writing and research, but if you can think in the appropriate manner, it 's not hard, not in the sense that advanced mathematics is just hard.

~ H
Certainly true. But a lot of what's useful, and sometimes even enjoyable, about law school is working through both the substantive information and the process of learning to "think like a lawyer" with other students and profs. I think online law school could be pretty dry and discouraging.

Originally Posted by iammatt

Click to expand...

The one thing that is always striking about lawyers to me is how so many fail to see something in any context other than legal. Got a philosophical question? The supreme court defined that particular issue in case XYZ. Got a moral question? Well, you could argue based on precedent and statute that the answer is that it is OK or not OK. To me it seems, for most people, to be severely limiting, and to raise the art of thinking, analyzing and arguing no higher than a simple search for a textual interpretation telling you that you hold the correct view of the world. More than any other profession, I feel it destroys intellectual curiosity and replaces it with an extreme belief that what is good or right can be found in a decision made by a man, or group of men, in a black robe.

Obviously, Huntsman, I don't figure this will happen to you, and it certainly does not happen to every lawyer, but it is a disease that seems to afflict a huge number of them. Of course, this is apart from the leech like attitude that Gnatty describes. Sorry to anybody I have offended, but I had to get it off of my chest.
Obviously, your experience has been what it has been. I haven't found this to be as prevalent as you suggest, although the phenomenon obviously exists.

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

Click to expand...

Obviously, your experience has been what it has been. I haven't found this to be as prevalent as you suggest, although the phenomenon obviously exists.

I think there might be a qualitative difference in perception over this, most likely based on being in the legal profession or not. As I noted in agreement with Matt, I usually end up posting to an attorney that the moral =! the legal, etc. I can remember going to an ethics conference given by an Ass AG, in the couple of years I worked for the state DHS, and he went on and on about, 'This was ethical prior, but is not ethical now. This was not ethical, but now is ethical." He summarized by telling everyone, if we just keep current with the guidelines of what is and is not ethical, we were bound to never have any moral problems at work. When I pointed out to him the best he could say is, "This now falls under the legal description of "ethical," not that something is or is not ethical from a moral standpoint," he completely failed to comprehend what I said to him.

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Click to expand...

I think there might be a qualitative difference in perception over this, most likely based on being in the legal profession or not. As I noted in agreement with Matt, I usually end up posting to an attorney that the moral =! the legal, etc. I can remember going to an ethics conference given by an Ass AG, in the couple of years I worked for the state DHS, and he went on and on about, 'This was ethical prior, but is not ethical now. This was not ethical, but now is ethical." He summarized by telling everyone, if we just keep current with the guidelines of what is and is not ethical, we were bound to never have any moral problems at work. When I pointed out to him the best he could say is, "This now falls under the legal description of "ethical," not that something is or is not ethical from a moral standpoint," he completely failed to comprehend what I said to him.

I don't doubt the existence of the phenomenon. It probably results from a combination of self-selection and training/reinforcement. I wonder, based on some very limited anecdotal observations, whether this tendency is more pronounced among law students and new lawyers, who haven't yet begun to develop a patina on their fancy new body of knowledge.

Part of the confustion you describe ^ could have been semantic. Lawyers in most jurisdictions operate under a codified set of ethics, and at least some of those rules change from time to time (although not the core principles). (For example, there is an ongoing debate about whether, or how, the conflict-of-interest rules should apply when lawyers change law firms.) So a positivistic "let's see if it falls within the guidelines or not" approach to professional ethics is natural -- and, in fact, necessary. That said, the inability to understand the difference between this and the more general sense of ethics (professional or otherwise) is just dumb.

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Click to expand...

When I pointed out to him the best he could say is, "This now falls under the legal description of "ethical," not that something is or is not ethical from a moral standpoint," he completely failed to comprehend what I said to him.
So he was talking about professional ethics and you were trying to shift the context to a discussion of moral philosophy? Because I'm gonna have to say this one's on you in that case.

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

Click to expand...

Obviously, your experience has been what it has been. I haven't found this to be as prevalent as you suggest, although the phenomenon obviously exists.

Obviously anecdotes are not proof, but I have one that comes to mind whenever this topic is discussed...

A few years ago, I was with a few friends, and I think a few family members, and we were discussing issues concerning freedom to work, wages and economic liberalization in third world countries and stuff like sweat shops and child labor. Most people were discussing the issues basically on economic, philosophical or human rights grounds, and a particular appellate lawyer in the group was getting very frustrated. He finally blurted out that we didn't understand what these liberties might be, because we were all living in a Lochnerian world and that Parrish so fundamentally changed what liberty was that what we were discussing was nonsense. Now, it is quite possible that we were talking nonsense, but the ideas that a Supreme Court decision is the arbiter for looking either at the actual morality or sensibility of an issue, that somehow a court decision is so universal that it crosses borders and that a court decision can put to rest philosophical issues like what liberties are and which are essential seems to me to be more than a bit legally myopic.

Obviously just an anecdote, but this is, I guess, what I mean. As I said before, it is not a universal criticism, just the stereotyping of a group, but I think it is not an unreasonable stereotype in many ways.

I've encountered the same attitudes as pio and matt but there is no way I would universalize it to all lawyers, a number of them can think like decent human beings if they need to hide their pestiferous status.

Originally Posted by iammatt

Click to expand...

Obviously anecdotes are not proof,
Objection sustained.

Originally Posted by JD_May

Click to expand...

So he was talking about professional ethics and you were trying to shift the context to a discussion of moral philosophy? Because I'm gonna have to say this one's on you in that case.

No, he specifically stated that by keeping up on current rulings of what is and isn't ethical, it would prevent us from having moral problems at work. In our conversation afterwards, I stated that what rules define "ethical" for a government employee is far from what constitutes "morality." I also stated that the concept of say, having your lunch paid for by a vendor, could change under guidance of "professional ethics" but the moral status of this action would probably remain the same. He clearly could not see "the moral" was not a statement equivalent to "the legally ethical." I'm still puzzled, as I thought that was thoroughly covered in law school?

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Click to expand...

I've encountered the same attitudes as pio and matt but there is no way I would universalize it to all lawyers, a number of them can think like decent human beings if they need to hide their pestiferous status.

Agreed, would not make a universal statement. I would however, go out on a limb and say it's prevalent.