Law School Rankings

13 01 2010

I came across the 2009 MacLeans Law School rankings the other day. While its nice to see the Western has climbed a little bit since last year (up to 10 from 12 out of 16 common law schools), it was the comments that really got me thinking.

Criteria: But ya’ gotta rate something

First of all, I want to say I agree that ‘elite firm hiring’ and ‘Supreme Court clerkships’ aren’t the most representative of measures. You do have to measure something, though, if you are going to have a ranking. Perhaps we shouldn’t, but that’s a whole different issue. I think rankings come with a huge caveat emptor attached at the best of times (they tend to be elitist and favour quantitative measures over qualitative ones) and what makes a ‘good’ law school may not necessary create ‘good’ lawyers.

Specifically, I think the danger in a space as small as that occupied by  Canadian law schools is that measures such as elite firms (which, I’m assume, are necessarily in large, urban centres) and SCC clerkships (which, by definition, are limited) simply aren’t informative. The fact is most law schools in Canada have a large regional focus. Want to practice in Windsor? Well, you better either be from Windsor or go to school there if what I’ve heard is accurate. The same, to some extent, is true in London. I’m sure its even more true in provinces with only one law school. Similarly, as an Ontarian, I would pick Windsor (or any Ontario school) over UManitoba any day, not because of the rankings (indeed, Manitoba beats Windsor), but because I have no interest in enduring the weather and travel that would come with it.

Finally, I fear that rankings become nothing but self-fulfilling prophecies. “Oh, you want to clerk for the SCC? Better get into McGill then!” or “Oh, you have your eye on Bay St.? Hope you like UofT!” Don’t misunderstand me, if a particular school has an academic strength in a certain area that interests you, you’d be a fool not to consider it on that basis. But to pick a school because a ranking told you that it might increase your statistical odds would be utilitarian at best and at worst it would simply continue the cycle that these rankings thrive on.

Alternatives

Do you own research. There simply aren’t that many schools out there (unless you apply to them all and then, well, that’s your own fault). Granted it can be hard to figure out who to trust when you’re doing this insofar as the schools have a vested interest in sounding fantastic and alumni are similarly biased. Our Dean here at Western, a certain Dr. Ian Holloway, QC, makes a pretty good point when he proposes that in Canada there are no bad law schools. Rather it is only a matter of finding the one that is right for you. How you make that choice is up to you. The schools might make it for you between scholarships and rejections. It might be the lure of that shiny MacLean’s #1. It might be your love of sea air. It might be your significant other.

The point is, if you place too much emphasis on any one factor, you have no one to blame but yourself.

In Closing

Rankings make sense in the US. As a legal employer there are simply too many different schools to understand what makes each one stand out. Instead, you can get a rough idea by looking at where they sit on the list. Even then, though, I’ve heard it said that a good, non-Tier 1 regional school can top a Tier 1 (though perhaps not a T-14) non-regional school in some markets.

We simply don’t have that problem here, as you’ll be able to see by looking at most medium to large sized firms’ websites. You’ll see regional/geographic biases to be sure, but that doesn’t show up in the rankings. You can’t really blame MacLean’s though. Its not like their in the truth business. They’re only in the business business.

The moral of the story here is there is simply more to the story than the stats would have you believe.


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Pre-Law

The Consumer Profession of Law

2 12 2009

The recent post by Simon Chester on, as he put it, “[t]hree unrelated thoughts on law and honour” was truly thought provoking. Indeed, it made me wonder if it was not a terminal diagnosis. It is not just that lawyers face an historical culture that places an emphasis on acting on ‘instruction,’ but a current economic reality that brings the bottom line into sharp relief. This raises the disturbing proposition, then, that a lawyer may never be in a position to ‘do the right thing.’

If you won’t do it, I’ll find someone who will!

You’ve all seen it on tv. The intrepid doctor is faced with a patient who requests a questionable procedure/prescription. Our ‘hero’ is caught on the horns of a moral dilemma. Does she respect the patient’s wishes or honour their own ethical code? After much deliberation, she is resolved to tell the patient she can’t go through with their request. The patient, furious, inevitably retorts “if you don’t do it, I’ll find someone who will.” The kicker is often “anyway, I’m paying you good money for this!”

Now, on tv these kinds of issues crop up with an unnatural regularity to be sure. Your average law practice may never even face such a conundrum. That said, the sorts of practices that do face them on a regular basis are from the ordinary: justice departments, firms specializing in securities, and criminal law of all flavours. It is also not beyond the imagination for a family lawyer to question her client’s motives. But what are these lawyers to do? Its not as if there aren’t other lawyers who can do the job. If lawyers were independently wealthy, then this wouldn’t be a problem; but when you need to put bread on the table it can get rather hard to say ‘no.’ It’s the classic ‘good guy’ paradox: why be good when it pays to be bad?

There is also the second trap, also often reprised on tv, of the well meaning doctor acquiescing to the patient’s unconscionable demands. If someone is going to do it, they say, it might as well be me so that I can stop it before it gets too far. Right, because that’s usually how it turns out. Slippery slopes are, well, slippery. Once you start down them, it’s not just hard to bet back to where you came from, it’s near impossible to stop sliding down at all. Given the alternatives, however, what’s a lawyer to do?

What was that counsellor?

The style of address says it all, doesn’t it? A counsellor, by definition, provides counsel. That can be pretty hard to do when your client doesn’t trust you. And why would he, if, in his perception, you don’t have his best interests at heart. What do you say to the quintessential utility maximizer who demands to know how much it might cost him to contaminate the local well? “I’m sorry, I don’t think that’s really the question you should be asking…” Even if he doesn’t fire you, you might find yourself doing less stimulating work. At least there won’t be moral ambiguity in his lease renewals.

It comes down to this: a lawyer purports to provide a valuable service. How does your client decide your service is valuable? It will likely come down to whether or not he makes more (or at least loses less) money than he would have without you. If that is the only criteria, as I submit it is, by which he makes this decision, then ‘good’ advice might not be the same as ‘valuable’ advice at all. To borrow from Matthew Good, Mill is fighting Kant and you’re in the stands.

Personal Integrity v. Professional Integrity

The problem seems to be one of trying to serve two masters simultaneously. Is the lawyer a servant of justice or merely the employee of a mega-conglomerate? Perhaps the two are not always mutually exclusive, corporations have rights after all. That said, the tension is palpable and, where they do conflict, it is not clear what the lawyer is to do.

Even where the latter wins out, it is unclear, at least to me, how the lawyer, as a person, is meant to respond to the demands of her profession. Are the two meant to be divorced such that you follow one set of rules from 9-5 (or whatever your workday looks like) and another during what’s left of the day? Or are you really able to separate the two. You do not cease to be a lawyer when you leave the office anymore than you cease to be a person when you enter it. This tension, at least, seems intractable.

Of Foxes and Lions

Perhaps this will all be cleared up in my mandatory professional ethics class next term. This is a murky topic, and there may be no easy answer. That alone, however, seems like a poor excuse not to try. The answer might be, as it so often seems to be, to focus less on the cost/benefit analysis and more on the result.

Make no mistake, this is not an apology for how things are, but a lament for the way things may never be. Given the personal cost associated with doing the right thing, the honourable thing, it seems unlikely that anyone will take that heroic step. Instead, lawyers might have to content themselves, as they long have, with living by their wits and doing what little they can with what little they have.

In this respect at least, J.G.A. Pocock could have been describing the legal profession when he said “we are all foxes, never lions.”


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : State of the Profession

Private Law, Public Policy

18 11 2009

We have been studying the law of negligence in my first year tort class here at Western Law. In fact, it has, quite unexpectedly, become one of my favourite classes. To this I credit the quality of instruction, though the subject matter certainly is thought provoking. So much so, that I have become rather disturbed by the Canadian, and other Commonwealth countries’, approach to the subject. Even in an apparently clear case, such as Cooper v. Hobart, the Supreme Court of Canada feels compelled to expound the public policy reasons for their decision. This, I think, misses the point and, worse yet, overreaches.

Inconsistent Theory, Uncertain Policy

As my professor would explain it, negligence, properly understood, is still very much within the mould of Donoghue v. Stevenson. When it comes to the duty of care proximity serves to limit liability. The question is: did the plaintiff share a relationship with the defendant such that the defendant should have reasonably foreseen that the plaintiff might be among those affected by her actions? In this respect, the defendant’s liability is delimited by a circle or series of circles with her at the centre. If the plaintiff falls within the scope of this proximity (within the circle), then we can say a duty was owed and you may proceed to the next step of the negligence analysis. If not, then there was no duty and, therefore, no right upon which to sue.

That is, if we take my professor’s view. The courts, at least on the basis of both my (admittedly limited) experience and the authority of my professor, often adopt a different approach. The first step is to address foreseeability and proximity with respect to the particular plaintiff(s) and defendant(s). If both they both obtain, then the court attempts to fit the case into an existing category of negligence. Where they are unable to do so, they turn to public policy to assess whether or not the case under consideration should give rise to a new case of action. In this determination they will consider if there are any reasons of public policy that might prevent them from creating such a new cause of action. As the term may suggest, public policy can include just about anything of concern to the public, be it the precedent set or broader social concerns.

Coherence Breeds Certainty

And what’s wrong with that? Well, in a word, everything. On the relationship-based view of negligence liability turns on the issues in the case. Sounds simple, but that is what private law is meant to be about or, at least, so I’m told. If it were a question of general concern, then it would likely be an exercise in public law.

Fine, but perhaps the court should take the consequences of its decision into account. After all, if the Supreme Court of Canada makes a pronouncement on a particular private law dispute it will certainly have a very public effect. This concern should not be easily dismissed. It does not, however, grant the courts carte blanche. While surely there would be some concern if, in the course of a judgment, the court imputed unlimited liability to an unlimited class of people. The concept of proximity, however, seems to address that very concern.

I do not owe you a duty and, therefore, I risk no liability if you are not, as Lord Atkin put it, my ‘neighbour.’ Now, some actors and some actions may be so large and pervasive that a great many people become their neighbours, but this, in and of itself, does not really present a problem. Indeed, that is the beauty of coherency: all actions have consequences that are roughly proportional to their scope. This perturbs some, like the Supreme Court of Canada, so much that they at once recognize the existence of liability and dismiss it for reasons of ‘public policy.’

P-Words Belong to Parliament

This approach raises its own questions. First, why do we need to limit liability at all? Granted, liability ceases to make sense if it captures all actions: if you are liable for everything, then, in some sense, you are liable for nothing. I don’t see, however, that such consequences are the realistic outcome of the application of Donoghue v. Stevenson. It seems rather arbitrary to proclaim that you, massive business enterprise, are entitled to all the benefits that accrue to your size while simultaneously bearing only some of the concomitant risks. If the duties and rights are there, then it would seem no answer to suggest that ‘public policy,’ whatever that means, somehow extinguishes them.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, ‘public’ questions should be left to representative institutions. This is not to say that the courts cannot make evaluative decisions. In fact, that is largely what the Charter requires them to do. Similarly, whenever the courts are called to make decision upon equitable grounds they often have no choice but to evaluate each party’s actions. The irony, then, is that by citing ‘public policy’ the courts set about extinguishing rights that are otherwise admittedly valid. The Charter calls for balancing, tort law, as far as I am aware, does not.

If the logical application of liability would lead to ‘publically’ undesirable outcomes, then that is a question for Parliament. In this respect, the courts seem to have it backwards. They will not extend liability where the doctrine demands it, but they will read into s. 7 of the Charter a richer definition of ‘fundamental justice’ than was clearly ever intended. If the application of ‘public policy’ is from a genuine concern with public welfare, then leave that essentially contestable concern to those who are competent do deal with it. That was the approach of the courts with nuisance in the former half of the 20th century. I don’t see why it should be any different today.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , ,
Categories : Legal Analysis

UPDATE: Windows 7 – Not Actually Your Best Friend

3 11 2009

So, as it turns out, my earlier post is just plain wrong. We’ve been warned here at Western Law that Extegrity, the producers of the Exam4 software used by the faculty for computerized exams, has advised students to avoid Windows 7 until further notice. Apparently there is a compatibility issue that will prevent them from ensuring a quality experience in time for December exams. They do, however, expect to have the issue resolved for Spring exams in 2010.

Options

So, avoid upgrading or purchasing a new computer unless you will have an exam-worthy alternative available to you. Or, you know, you could just write your exams by hand. I guess it depends on how badly you want to get rid of Vista ‘adopt’ Windows 7.

Apple For the Win

Not to brag, but OS X 10.6 ‘Snow Leopard’ is fully supported for this December. Just in case you need another reason to buy a unibody MacBook.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Technology

Expert or Teacher?: The Question of Quality in Post-Secondary Education

9 09 2009

I recently read an interesting article in the Globe and Mail that revealed that the big five research universities (UBC, UofA, UofT, McGill, and Montreal) have requested that governments shift the way they allocate funding for institutions of higher education such that they, the Big Five, can concentrate more on research and the other schools should begin to focus exclusively on undergraduate education. This created the expected furore among the many, many schools left out of this ‘elitist’ proposal. My own alma mater chimed in, as did several other universities who are, undoubtedly, doing fantastic research in their own fields.  The complaint seemed to be that size shouldn’t matter. Rather, it should be the quality of work that is rewarded.

I think two things need to be addressed here. First, is the charge of elitism. I think we might as well come out and accept that the world of academia is an elitist one. It starts with where and with whom you did your grad work, then its about where you did your post-doc, then it is about how much you publish and in which journals, and, finally, it is about how many citations your work receives. Even when you are getting references as an undergrad you are meant to, at least so I’ve been told, seek them from established professors; even if this means they may not know you, or your work, as well as, say, a teaching fellow who has taught you in several small seminars over the past three years.

Second, and frankly, size does matter. While there are exceptions to the rule, in both the UK and the US the schools with the highest research intensity also tend to be the larger schools on the respective blocks. Granted, they do specialize and, granted, there remain regional powerhouses that compete against each other. This, however, is more likely a product of the scale of the US population and economy than anything else. The fact is, that when it comes to research there is much that must be conceded to the scale of the institution. It means, perhaps, higher quality colleagues. Or, perhaps, it means more interdisciplinary approaches are possible. Certainly, it will mean that the school can build a better reputation as a leader and innovator in its own field or fields, both at home and abroad, if it is simply big enough to be noticed.

Undergraduate and Professional v. Graduate Degrees

This proposal raises a broader question: what should we look for in undergraduate (and, by extension, professional) education? The answer, at least to me, is simple: knowledge and skills acquisition. The question, then, is how best to go about developing that knowledge and those skills. Is it necessary to learn from the (wo)man who, literally, wrote the book on the subject? Or is it more important to not only read said book, but also have it expounded upon by someone who is both a cogent and engaging lecturer? This is not to say, of course, that those who are at the pinnacle of their field cannot, necessarily, give instructive lectures. Rather, it is to suggest two things. First, that they have other, more important, things to be doing that giving an undergraduate lecture course. Second, their brilliance and, perhaps, even their literary talent (though the latter is far from required it would seem) are no guarantee, contrary to popular opinion, of their ability as a teacher. Make no mistake, they should continue to supervise graduate students, but, as any grad student will tell you, that is a particular kind of relationship.

This brings me to a discussion I saw recently on lawstudents.ca. Now, I’m not forgetting my own advice since I am not going to engage with the debate in question directly. Rather, I want to draw it into the present discussion as an example of both the kind of elitism of which I spoke and of the distinction I want to draw between undergrad and professional degrees on the one hand and graduate degrees on the other. The debate in question hinges on whether or not you will receive the same quality of education outside of UofT and Osgoode. The initial premise is based upon the supposition that in order to receive a quality education one must learn from a leader in the field. This, of course, blatantly disregards not only the fact that other schools also have leading academics, but also that some fields will have more than one leading name.

More over, this position is based upon the idea that in order to receive a quality education at all it must be from such a leader. This, I would submit, is patently false, at least as it pertains to non-graduate degree programs. In fact, some of the best instructors I had during my undergraduate career were only associate professors or, for that matter, teaching fellows who didn’t even have their Ph.D. yet. Did we read the biggest names in the field? Certainly. Did I have a worse appreciation of their positions for not having heard it from the horse’s mouth? I doubt it. Indeed, of the instructors I did have, some of the worst were some of the best known.

What Does This All Mean?

Granted, this is all highly anecdotal, but it does demonstrate that there is no necessary connection between the quantity and quality of published material and the ability to teach. Now, if we accept what I said above, that the purpose of both undergraduate and professional degrees is to impart a certain amount of basic knowledge and skills, then it suggests that the research credentials of the faculty alone will not prove a sufficient indicator of the quality of such degree programs.

This should prove doubly true of professional programs where the end goal is to produce individuals who will then be in a position to join a professional body upon the completion of their program. It will be my ability to understand the law as it is now in the context of the facts of a particular situation and then render some form of actionable advice by which I will be judged as a lawyer. It will not be my ability to discuss the finer points of Rawls’ burdens of judgment as they apply to a piece of legislation currently under debate in Ottawa. This is not to suggest that undergraduate and professional degrees should not provide a rigorous and theoretical understanding of their subject matter. Rather, it is to argue that they should do so in a way that augments, but that does not supplant, their original purpose.

How I Choose My Degree Programs (And How Those Choices Won’t Change)

In choosing both my undergraduate and professional degree programs I want to satisfy two requirements. First, I wanted a program that would provide me with a broad background in the subject. When you start studying any subject for the first time you will necessarily have a shaky grasp of what exactly it entails. For example, when I began Political Studies at Queen’s back in 2005 I was convinced I was going to studying International Relations and go on to do an M.A. at the Norman Paterson School. Instead, I discovered Political Theory, something I was only vaguely familiar with before second year. Had I gone to Glendon at York, like I had been planning on since the start of grade 12, I would have gone straight into an IR program and never looked back. Similarly, when it came time to decide on a law school, I wanted to ensure that my choice would keep my options open. I didn’t want to back myself into a corner, for example, by committing to a school that was well known for its Intellectual Property program, but nothing else.

Second, I wanted a program that would lead to a degree that would be able to stand on its own. I wanted a program that, if I did nothing else afterwards, would stand me in good stead in the job market. It was this reason in particular that made me choose Western Law over some of my other options. As I mentioned before, Western’s articling stats are had to beat. Add to this its ‘national reach’ and it became clear that Western Law was the school to attend if I decided I wanted to practice once this was all over and done with.

If I decide I want to continue my education, either in the law or politics, then it will be at that point I will make an effort to attend the best schools my marks and finances allow. Until then, though, I will be perfectly happy right where I am.

The Point Is…

An undergraduate or professional degree should be an introduction, a grounding, in a subject. If something strikes your fancy, there will be plenty of time and opportunity to study it in depth and with some of the best and brightest. Indeed, the effort to specialize right out of the gate evokes the lamenting tones of Billy Joel’s Vienna. This breadth appears all the more important in the context of a legal education. Granted, you can study for, and pass, the bar exam without ever taking a course in family law, but doing so somewhat cheapens the exercise. You’ll be in a position, once you’re called, where you will be able to hold yourself out as an expert on a topic of which you may only have the most cursory of understandings. In this respect, I think the core curriculum of Ontario’s law schools doesn’t go far enough, but that is a topic for another post.

What I do find objectionable about the Big Five’s suggestion is that they don’t go far enough in divesting themselves of undergraduate and professional programs. Yes, they want less undergrads, but they also want other schools to give up, for all intents and purposes, their post-grad programs entirely. If what we need is the kind of focus, scale, and intensity, in short, a critical mass, of research that only these large schools can provide, then it would seem fair to ask them commit, whole-hog, to that project. If direct instruction by the best and brightest is unnecessary in a first-level program, then why are those leaders wasting their time?


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , ,
Categories : Uncategorized

Windows 7: A Law Student’s Best Friend?

8 07 2009

I’m a Mac guy or maybe I should say I’m not a Windows guy. That said, the legal world is still very much under the thrall of Windows and, for that matter, Microsoft. Unlike some individuals, I have nothing personal against Microsoft the company. In fact, if they were to produce a decent product, I would be more than willing to pay for it (as necessary and probably never for purely personal purposes).

Given, then, that most law schools have followed the legal profession as a whole into the jaws of the Beast of Richmond (like I said, nothing personal) it follows that the law student should, if nothing else, be acquainted with its products. This is easy enough to justify with products like Microsoft Office because of its sheer ubiquity. Ever try to open a .docx document in OpenOffice.org and you will understand what I mean. Simply for dealing with the great unwashed masses, therefore, it pays to own a copy of Office.

The law student faces another reason to pay for her software, though, except this time it is in the name of computerized exams. Most law faculties, like at Western, give their students a choice of how they would like to write their exams, but only if they have a copy of Windows installed (disclaimer: this statement is made from my recollection of an off-hand comment made by my tour guide at the Western Law Welcome Day back in March). Now, I have yet to have the pleasure of writing an exam on a computer, however, it honestly cannot be any worse than writing them by hand, at least if your handwriting looks anything like mine. On compassionate grounds alone (whether for your prof or your mark I’ll leave up to you), therefore, I would strongly suggest you ensure that you are compatible with the test taking software at your institution.

Windows 7: A Decent Product

This brings me to the heart of the post, Windows 7 is actually (note the surprise) a pleasure to use (on a MacBook Pro, at least). Whether or not Windows 7 is simply what Vista should have been I will not get into here. What is worth considering, though, is whether or not you should upgrade or dual boot your machine (for you Mac and Linux users out there).

This issue is a little more pressing for the Windows users among us as they only have until July 11th to receive a special offer of about half price off the regular price of an upgrade DVD. Similarly, if you buy a qualifying PC you will receive free upgrade media when it becomes available. If you are a Vista PC who has installed the second Service Pack and you are happy with your performance, then you can probably sit out the upgrade. If you are an XP PC, however, I would seriously suggest you take advantage of the deal. Not only is XP approaching its end-of-life, but it simply cannot compete with the feature set of Windows 7. You will want to ensure, however, that your computer meets the minimum requires and such in order to avoid a Vista-like fiasco.

What kind of features am I talking about? Well, for a complete list you’ll have to visit the website, but the feature I found most impressive was the ability, as a laptop user, to have Windows 7 detect when I have an external display attached and automatically refocus to said display when I close my laptop. Now, I can sort of do this in OS X, but it has to sleep in between which is, frankly, kind of annoying. Windows 7, on the other hand, does it without missing a byte (yes, that’s meant to be a pun).

Non-Windows Users: Dual Booting You Say

For the Mac (or Linux) user, however, the picture is not as clear. To start, we cannot take advantage of the limited time offer (unless you already have XP or Vista installed) as it is merely for the upgrade DVD. As a result, we’ll have to wait and (surprise) pay full price in October. For that matter, if you already have Windows installed, you don’t really need to worry about the upgrade anyway. You probably don’t use it as your everyday operating system (if you do, you kind of went about it backwards, didn’t you?) so the features are not of paramount importance and you are already in a position to avail yourself of the exam software at your institution.

For the rest of us, it will mean waiting until October, paying full price, and dual booting. There are plenty of detailed, step-by-step instructions available on how to dual boot your Mac or Linux machine, so I won’t go into details here. I will caution you that it does take some time and may require you to reinstall your primary operating system as well. My main piece of advice, then, would be to allow at least a day or, perhaps, a weekend to ensure you don’t end up needing your computer while it is in an install-induced coma. Windows 7 is still worth the wait, though, as there is no need to install an about-to-be last-generation product for essentially the same cost in terms of blood and treasure.

What To Do?

While Microsoft is not likely to win any Best Loved Company of the Year awards, it is getting better at giving people what they, and not what Microsoft’s overlords, want. If you are an XP, Mac, or Linux user, I would suggest you strongly consider setting aside some cash to commit to an upgrade this November. If you are already on Vista, you can save yourself some time and trouble and forgo the upgrade. At the end of the day, I’m a pragmatist and if that means dancing with the devil, then so be it.

Cross-posted on LawIsCool.com.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Technology

Waddams v. Hutchinson

1 07 2009

On June 9th those accepted to Western law received an email suggesting that, if we do nothing else to prepare for September, we read two books. The first is by Stephen Waddams, Introduction to the Study of Law, 6th ed. (Toronto: Thomson Carswell, 2004. ISBN 0-459-24152-4). The second is by Allan C. Hutchinson, The Law School Book: Succeeding at Law School, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law Inc., 2000. ISBN 1-55221-045-6). Technically, the former is required and the latter is merely recommended, though I would suggest that you read both as they each take their own approach to the topic at hand.

If you read no further, know that Waddams’ book is much more about the study of law than it is about law school per se (hence its required status). Hutchinson, on the other hand, deals more with what it is like to be a law student – what to expect and how to handle it. In short, both are extremely useful, but if you are pressed for time (or cash) pick Waddams over Hutchinson for your summer reading and then pick up Hutchinson sometime during first term when his more practical tips will be better appreciated.

Introduction to the Study of Law

Waddams is upfront about who he is writing for, which are those considering or undertaking the study of law but who are as yet unacquainted with it. What is clear, though, is that Waddams’ way with words can become cumbersome, especially when mixed with unfamiliar terms and concepts. There is no doubt in my mind that he is an extremely intelligent and erudite individual, but it is apparent that ease of reading was either not one of his priorities or one of his gifts.

In terms of content the Introduction is quite comprehensive. Waddams deals with the distinction between public and private law as well as the various meanings and uses of civil and common law and he even discusses the basics of legal reasoning. He also touches upon the theory behind legal education itself which provides a useful view into the heads of Canadian law school administrators everywhere (forewarned is forearmed). Similarly, he provides an outline of not only the structure of the Canadian judicial system, but also the structure of both the English and American courts. In fact, he goes so far as to provide a brief overview of the historical difference between equity and the common law. Incidentally, this was one of two chapters that Western said wasn’t required reading (the other being the last chapter on the legal profession) and I can now appreciate why; the difference is rather difficult to grasp for the non-initiated and, as a result, the limited space available only serves to confuse the issue. Not that this is Waddams’ fault by any means, but it is worth noting that nothing, apparently, is lost from skipping the chapter and I found little, if anything, was to be gained from reading it. Waddams closes with some revealing commentary on the relationship between legal practitioners and the public. In fact, it was this last chapter that I found most engaging.

Here, Waddams muses that only in business settings are lawyers really appreciated because in almost any other setting they are seen as, at best a necessary evil, and at worst a parasite. Either way, lawyers are seen to, he claims, merely complicate what is rightfully the clients anyway. The exception is cold comfort, however, as a reputation in the local penitentiary that a good criminal defence lawyer develops is probably not what draws most to the profession. Whether Waddams is being hyperbolic or simply cynical is hard to gauge. Though perhaps this is why so many law students dream of a plum corporate job.

It should be noted  that the Introduction is largely a theoretical text. By this I mean it aims largely to provide a kind of conceptual map to the uninitiated in order to allow them to orient themselves on their upcoming adventures in this heretofore unknown territory. That said, the examples Waddams does provide are, almost without fail, of a civil nature. This is not wholly surprising as Waddams’ other published works are in the field of contract law and he is a professor of the subject at UofT. Do not misunderstand me, the examples illustrate the points he is trying to make, but they are not exactly exciting. Not that I expected high stakes drama in a book entitled an Introduction to the Study of Law, but it would have been nice to have seen other aspects of the law used if only to broaden the reader’s own understanding of how it is applied.

The Law School Book

Hutchinson’s intended audience is much the same as Waddams’; he is writing explicitly for those seriously considering applying to law school, those who have already been accepted and are eager to get a handle of what exactly it is they have gotten themselves into, or those already in first year and who need some help learning the ropes. The difference, however, is in the writing style. Not only is Hutchinson irreverent and witty, but his prose is simply easy to read. Now, this is not to suggest that law students or presumptive law students are unable to read complex texts. Indeed, I would hope this is not the case, however, it is true that even a hardened academic can appreciate a simple and straightforward approach to a problem. Add to this the likelihood that Hutchinson’s reader is currently enrolled in an academic program and it stands to reason that he would not want to make his work too much like just another academic treatise.

In his book Hutchinson provides a great introduction to the non-legal aspects of the study of law. By this I mean that The Law School Book introduces you to legal research, writing, exams, and mooting among other things. It is not that Hutchinson ignores the law itself, that would be rather hard to do in a book about law school after all. What he does, however, is condense his introduction to the study of law into one chapter. In so doing he successfully provides context for his other chapters, but he also leaves the reader free to explore what they are really curious about: life at law school. It is also worth noting that Hutchinson does not ignore theory (again not surprising given his research interests), in fact he has a whole section devoted to differing approaches to the application of law. In fact, it is not just that he addresses legal theory, but the way in which he does it that is interesting; by attaching it to the practical application of law he identifies its universal applicability. While theory and practice are often quite separate, it is also often the case that theory precedes and informs practice and it is this relationship that Hutchinson highlights.

Probably the best aspect of The Law School Book from the perspective of an incoming law student or a 1L is Hutchinson’s continued emphasis on real life examples and experience. For example, if you wanted to learn about law school exams and how to prepare for them, then what better place to go than a law school professor who has marked hundreds, if not thousands, of said exams. He provides similar practical advice on conducting research, mooting, and legal writing. In fact, at the end of his book he has four appendices that provide examples of a factum, two memoranda, and some exams. This is why, even if you don’t read The Law School Book during the summer before your first year, you will certainly want to pick it up once it gets under way.

Conclusion

Before I properly conclude, I want to touch upon one thing both texts have in common and this is their age: 2004 and 2000 respectively. I am not so much of a geek as to believe that information published more than a year ago is of no value. What does become apparent, however, is that certain aspects of the law school experience, as discussed by Waddams and Hutchinson, have become dated. No where is this more noticeable than in their respective discussions of legal research. Now, they both touch upon electronic forms of research and they both note that this is the way of the future, but there is little mention of the internet as a tool with more emphasis on CD-ROMs (remember those?) and the like. So, while I would take the sections on electronic research with a grain of salt, I see no reason to discount the rest of their advice as past its sell-by-date.

Keeping in mind that I touched upon Hutchinson’s book in a previous post where I suggested it was mandatory reading for the applicant or those thinking about law school in general. I haven’t changed my mind in the last week, I still think that the Law School Book is an excellent introduction to law school, but once you have decided that law school is for you and once you’ve been accepted it is more imperative that you get a handle on what it is you go to law school for: the study of law. The differing emphasis is simply evident in the books’ respective titles.

In sum, then, Western’s appraisal of the priority to be placed on each book is entirely accurate – if you are already committed to attending a law school. If not, you may want to take my previous advice and start with Hutchinson. Both books achieve the goals they have set for themselves, though not without some difficulties. These minor problems are entirely forgivable, however, as they spring more from the age of the books and the eccentricities of their authors than any objective failing.

A final note, Waddams’ book does seem to be harder to get a hold of. I ended up ordering it directly from Carswell which, though not an unpleasant experience, did involve paying for shipping. Hutchison’s book, on the other hand, was readily available on Indigo which meant, with the purchase of a second and unrelated book, I received free shipping. This is not a comment on the books, of course, but merely a word to the wise.

Cross-posted on LawIsCool.com.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , ,
Categories : Pre-Law

Why Western Law?

10 06 2009

I previously blogged about why I felt law school was right for me. Having decided that, however, a choice still remained. Namely, which of Canada’s sixteen common law faculties would I attend? To begin with I looked at a number of options, both out West and down East, but I knew my preference would be for an Ontario school if at all possible (see this post for some thoughts on the Ontario application process). Even having made that choice, though, I still had to decide which of the six Ontario schools to apply to and, once offers of admission began arriving, which of them to accept. When it came time to decide, I chose Western for a number reasons.

Location, Location, Location

I like Southwestern Ontario in general and I both enjoy and have connections to London in particular. To some extent, then, Western was the obvious choice insofar as it would not only be my home for three years, but it was also the fact that it would provide a certain level of networking and connectivity to the local legal community in both London itself and the surrounding centres. This is not only because of the fact that many (if not most) adjunct professors are local lawyers, but also because it will be that much easier when it came time to apply (and hopefully interview) for summer jobs and articles. When it came to location, however, there was another consideration that stuck in my mind.

Its Not Kingston

Now, I have nothing against Kingston, well, besides the penitentiaries. That said, it does have its draw backs. First of all, I have already lived there for four years and spent two summers there in the process. Second, and relatedly, I have also spent four years at Queen’s and while it is apparent that the Faculty of Law is a rather distinct entity, several aspects of the student experience would still be largely the same. To some extent, then, I simply wanted a change, which is not necessarily in favour of Western in particular, but it does not hurt its case either.

Collegiality

Western has two things going for it in terms of the relationships its students form. First, the entering class size is approximately 160; that is in total and before you are broken into small sections of approximately 20 students each. Second, Western is not a ‘commuter’ school in the way that schools in the GTA often are. Not everyone who attends UofT or Osgoode is born and raised there, but the proportion, by virtue of the size of the area, is much higher. It should be noted that there will be those who are London, or area, natives who will attend Western for the same reasons Torontonians (and area-ites) will attend the GTA schools, but it should also be noted that the very size of London presents those commuters with less of a commute and they are, as a result, perhaps less likely to be as uninvolved as their commuter status might suggest.

Now, those who have attended smaller schools, or schools in smaller locations, for their undergrad will be all too aware that the small size of a school cuts both ways; often there is nothing else to do and no one else to do it with. Its my guess, which has been corroborated to some extent, that both London and Western are just large enough to provide alternatives, both to your fellow law students for company and to the school as a single source of extracurricular options. In short, then, Western provides an ideal balance.

Practical Experience

While just about every law school now has some type of clinical program or other options to inject a level of practicality into the legal education they provide. One of the appealing things about Western Law is the abundance of options in this respect. Whether its with the Business Law Clinic, Community Legal Services (CLS), Pro Bono Canada, the Sport Solution, the Dispute Resolution Centre, several internal and external moot competitions, or on an international internship there is certainly something for everyone. Granted, there are not some of the options that are available at other faculties, but I feel that for where my interests lie (litigation presently) the opportunities available at Western will prove more than sufficient.

Concentrations

At the time I applied, Western had four areas of concentration one in each of criminal law, taxation, business, and intellectual property. At some point since February they changed that, dropping both criminal law and taxation apparently due to a lack of professors. While this will not (we’re told) change the availability of courses, it will prevent (in all likelihood) anyone in the entering class from being able to have either of those two concentrations noted on their degrees. Not the end of the world to be sure, but not an ideal situation either for anyone who thought they might be interested in one of those areas (as I had thought about criminal law). In any event, I am not convinced that a concentration will make or break a budding legal career, but it was still a little disappointing that the change was made after offers of admission had been sent and, perhaps, accepted.

Article Placement Rates

While the stats are a bit dated, it does seem that Western does particularly well in terms of the number of students who successfully secure articling positions. It is certainly true that anyone at any school should be able to secure articles if they have high marks or enough extracurriculars, but it was reassuring to know that of the 90% of the class that sought an articling position, only 1% (or less) were unsuccessful. If nothing else, it speaks to a system that works. As to why this so, I am not going to speculate, but I will certainly share any information I do uncover.

Conclusion

As Dean Holloway is want to say, there are no bad law schools in Canada. This is doubly so in Ontario. Having not applied to the University of Toronto or Windsor, I felt that, in terms of academics and reputation, the four schools I had applied to were of equal merit.  As a result, my decision ultimately came down to several (relatively) ’soft’ factors. Of the four programs, the cost was comparable, though living in the GTA for Osgoode would have made a noticeable difference. For others, obviously different factors, such as cost, family, future considerations, academic programs (environmental or intellectual property), etc. might play a larger role in their decision. And for some, there may unfortunately be no choice to make at all, but merely to go where one can.
What factors influenced (or will influence) your choice of law school? Share it in the comments.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: ,
Categories : Pre-Law