Law school two-year option intrigues New York's top judge

, The National Law Journal


Court of Appeals Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman stopped short of formally endorsing the idea when it was taken out for a public airing on January 18 at New York University School of Law. But he told the more than 100 gathered legal educators, practitioners and judges that the concept deserves serious study.

This premium content is reserved for National Law Journal subscribers.

Continue reading by getting started with a subscription.

Already a subscriber? Log in now

What's being said

  • HornyToad

    @Marsha - That kind of uninformed opinion is exactly why we do need lawyers, though I'm sure you'll disagree.

    On the merits of the proposal in the article, it's hard to see what value the 3rd year adds for legal employers and their clients. If law schools can find a way to add value to the 3rd year, then do it. But if they can't, then concede to reality and admit that employers are doing all the training, and law school is merely a finishing school.


    What has consistantly amazed me about this particular "industry" is the fact that one feels some form of "higher education credentials" is required. We use plain english in the U.S. The Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution, is written in english. All the man-made statutes, codes and rules by which we chose to attempt to govern ourselves by, are written in English. All that is required to KNOW THE LAW, is to READ it. One must understand Logic, proper english syntax, and of course U.S. & world History to be able to comprehend Context. But judges keep asking me to "go to law school"...and I'll keep replying, "why"? I can READ THE LAW just as easily as anyone else can. The man made up stuff is easy to challenge, IF one knows How To Read English.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202585130033

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.