University of Michigan Law School - Quad Yearbook (Ann Arbor, MI)

Page 68 text:

guished jurist and historian. But this has not been the fact. Until within a comparatively recent period, it was the exception to find in theaoffice-trained lawyer a friend of the schools. The average practitioner of the old school looked with distrust upon any attempt at systematic legal instruction. This was due in part to the natural conservatism of the profession and in some degree to an imperfect understanding of the work attempted. But with the advent of a new generation, of lawyers, many of them educated in the schools, and the majority understanding the scope and purpose of the instruction offered, we End a change of sentiment that is gratifying and encouraging to the friends of sound legal learning. The first law school in the United States was established in 1782, and for several years it was the only one. Later, some of the leading universities took up the work. Our own Department was estab- lished in 1859. During the last thirty years more than fifty schools have been organized, and at least sixteen have been added to the list since I8QO. At the present time there are probably seventy- hve regularly equipped schools in the country. In 1889 the reported aggregate attendance was three thousand, nine hundred and six, in 1894 it was seven thousand, eight hundred and sixty- three. I have not at hand official reports for later dates, but it is probable that the present attendance approximates, and it may exceed, ten thousand students. The hgures are suggestive. They show a growing appreciation of the advantages of regular and systematic instruction in the law. They are also signiticant as indicating the increasing responsibility that rests upon those who are shaping the course of legal education. In view of their present public and professional importance, a brief discussion of some of the questions that confront the law schools of to-day may possibly not be without profit. And first it should be suggested that one of the most difiicult elements in the problem of systematic legal education in this country at the present time lies in the fact that there is no uniformity in preliminary training for legal study. The college graduate and the young man with the merest rudiments of an education sit side by side. In justice, the instruction should be adapted to the needs of each. Under a system in which all instruction was given by lecture, the practical difficulties were not great. liach student got what he QOl11Cl- The errlbarrassments arising from delicicnt training were

Page 67 text:

Cho Law School of o-aav: Its work and 'functions .. ' ' ' ' ' -DO 'NOT KNOXVQ' says Mr. Bryce in his great 'ni I i book on The American Commonwealth, ffif there is anything in which America has advanced more 4 beyond the mother country than in the 'provision she makes for legal education. Twenty-five years ago, when there was nothing that could be called a scientific school of law in England, .... many American universities possessed well-equipped law departments, giving highly efficient instruction. Even-now, when England has bestirred her- self to make a more adequate provision for the professional training of both barristers and solicitors, this provision seems insignificant beside that which we find in the United States,'where, not -to speak of minor institutions, all the leadingpuniversities possess law schools, in each of which every branch of Anglo-American law, i. e., common law and equity as modified by Federal and 'State constitutions and statutes, is taught by a strong staff of able men, sometimes includ- ing the most eminent lawyers of the States . . .. ,. No one is obliged to attend these coursesiin order to obtain admission to practice, .... but the instruction is found so valuable, so helpful for professional success, that young men throng the lecture halls, willingly spending two or three years in the scientific study of the law, which they might have spent in the chambers of a practicing lawyer as pupils or as junior partners. This is the testi- mony of a most careful and conscientious observer and student of our institutions. It would be but reasonable to conclude that the profession generally in the United States must have been, from the Hrst, enthusiastic advocates and supporters of a system of legal education that could commend itself so favorably to this distin- Q

Page 69 text:

coulined very largely to the students thus handicapped. But under anysystem, a low preliminary standardis demoralizing, and under one which involves daily examinations upon topics previously assigned and the discussion by the student of legal principles and adjudi- cated cases, it is fatal to a high grade of Work. The presence of any considerable number of poorly equipped men must inevitably make the best results impossible. The law schools of to-day feel the practical difficulties of the situation and realize fully the neces- sity for reform. Those of the better class, particularly those con- nected with the universities, are doing what they can to remedy the evil by increasing their requirements for admission. Some have made radical changes in this regard, and many have -taken the initiative. Our own increased requirements go into effect in 1897, and it is the purpose of the Faculty to push the reform as rapidly as good judgment shall dictate. But the solution of the problem does not and cannot, under existing conditions, rest with the schools alone. This is not generally appreciated and I wish to make it emphatic. If every candidate for the bar were compelled to seek the schools for his professional training, the matter of preliminary education Would be exclusively in their hands. Under such cir- cumstances there Would, I am sure, be no hesitation on the part of law-school authorities in at once advancing the standard. The same result would undoubtedly be realized if the statutes governing admission provided for a substantial educational qualification. But the embarrassment of the schools must be appreciated when it is remembered that in the great majority of States there is abso- lutely no requirement as to general qualifications. The schools must lead, but they cannot, in the nature of things, bevery much in advance of the opinions of the public and the profession. The schools, the public, and the profession have a common duty to perform. They should act together. In no other Way can the ' difficulties of the situation be fully met. Qpportunities for educa- tion are now so general that substantial requirements by the State as a prerequisite to legal study wherever pursued, could rarely Work a hardship. Inna few of the States the experiment has been tried and with most satisfactory re sults. Until such requirements become general the work of the schools must be hampered by serious limi- 7 tations. We are confronted with this anomalous condition, that while in no country are the public functions of the lawyer so many