Julian Velasco (Notre Dame), Shortcomings of Law School and Big Law, 93 Fordham L. Rev. 1279 (2025):
The present Colloquium, on Lawyers and Their Institutions, seeks to consider how various legal institutions shape lawyers’ professional norms, values, and conduct. In this Essay, I will consider the two legal institutions with which I have been most involved, law school and “big law”—more specifically, transaction practice at an elite law firm. I will argue that these institutions exert a problematic influence on developing attorneys by inculcating opposing types of disrespect for the law.
Consider first law schools.
It is my contention that the process of legal education tends to suggest that the law is fundamentally indeterminate. Law school gives the impression that the law is more uncertain and malleable than it is, and it exaggerates the role of litigators in effecting change in the law. Compare that with transaction practice at elite law firms. I argue that big law tends to suggest to junior associates that the law is largely irrelevant, leading them to feel more like middle management in business than lawyers. These influences push novice attorneys away from the reality that the law is fairly stable—reasonably clear, but not unchangeable.
Why does this matter? Because of accuracy. A misunderstanding about the nature of law is likely to result in a misconception of the purpose of lawyering and give a false impression of a lawyer’s power. This is likely to make lawyers less helpful to their clients than they otherwise could be. Only with a proper appreciation of legal realities can lawyers optimize their representation of clients’ interests.
To be clear, I am not arguing that law school and big law are fundamentally flawed or that the main influences that they exert on novice attorneys are negative. To the contrary, I am convinced that both institutions are important and provide tremendous value to both attorneys and society generally. I am merely highlighting certain negative influences that ought not to be ignored.
In Part I, with respect to law schools, I argue that the very tools that are used to train attorneys tend to suggest that the law is indeterminate. In Part II, with respect to transaction practice at elite law firms, I argue that the nature of the work given to junior associates makes it difficult for them to appreciate the big legal picture. In Part III, I suggest that all that can be done is mitigation and that the institutions are already engaged in mitigation efforts. Nevertheless, a greater acknowledgment of the issues and more conscious mitigation efforts are appropriate.
Editor’s Note: If you would like to receive a daily email with links to legal education posts on TaxProf Blog, email me here.
