What should every wannabe lawyer know?

May 13, 2008 11:11 AM

If you were going to design a course of self-study in U.S. law that starts with the basics and moves outward, what would you recommend for reading?

I have now accepted that I will never attend law school. (I would, but I don't have a B.A. Also, I would be 40 by the time I got a J.D. Oh my.) But you know what? Who needs it! I can get my own legal education. So: Where do I start?

Particular interests include libel, labor and employment, corporate craziness and intellectual property, and I don't have much interest in, like, contracts, or the history of jurisprudence.

posted by RJ Reynolds to education (10 comments total)

There's a reason every law school career starts with contracts, torts, property, and civil procedure. They are the basis for all the future courses. Even though you aren't interested in contracts, you still need to have a basic background in them because all labor and employment, corporate, and IP stuff deals at some level with contracts. So I'd start there.

Alternatively, go to a law school Web site and check out their curriculum. You can always audit a class and not get credit for it or at least figure out the logical progression of the courses. Plus, there's no shame in being 40 at graduation. At least 1/4 of my JD class was over 40. The oldest grad we had was 81. Nice.

There's one more way, if you really just want a Cliff's Notes education - buy a used set of BarBri books.
posted by MeetMegan at 11:58 AM on May 13, 2008

I got my J.D. a few months before I turned 40, and don't have any regrets about that. So, I wouldn't let that get in the way. But the lack of a B.A. might be problematic ...

As far as a self study, I'd like to better understand why you're looking to do this. That will really help shape your study, because otherwise you could be wandering through a veritable jungle of books. A "legal education" is kind of vague, and I can't really suss out what you want. Also, it's actually really difficult to self-study law, because so much of what it's about is gleaned through talking about it. Law in the U.S. is all about the exchange of ideas, and it doesn't lend itself well to just reading. (This was a surprise for me, as someone who learns best by sitting alone and reading, as I didn't really think it could be true. But I believe it is.) It's sort of like learning another language -- you really learn it best by being immersed and talking to other people in that funny new language.

Additionally, there are some fundamentals that you really need to know because they run through the law. Contracts, for example. Labor and employment law is absolutely rife with contract law, built right on it, so to understand those areas, you really need to start with contract law. And the history of jurisprudence is American law. There is pretty much no single thing in American law that doesn't rely directly on a history of jurisprudence (by which I mean, that's what case law is, and case law is not only the majority of the law, but informs and influences statutory and regulatory law as well).

I'd be happy to discuss all this with you -- I don't mean to shut you down, not at all. But it does sound a little like saying, "Gosh, I'd really like to learn about physics, but I'm not much interested in math." (I do wish that colleges and high schools taught some fundamentals about the way American law (not just government) works, so that this kind of statement wouldn't be so likely.) Send me a private message if you want to talk on the phone, and we can talk. I can give you some more information and make some suggestions. I think the whole area is fabulously interesting, and would really love to help you find a way through the thicket.
posted by Capri at 11:59 AM on May 13, 2008

Start with the Bramble Bush, so you can see what you're missing. This Yale Law School Commencement Address [.pdf] tries, with excessive reference to baby chicks, to describe the goal of the teaching method.

What you'd be missing by ignoring the history of jurisprudence, criminal law, civil procedure, torts, and contracts, is the foundation for coming up with your own definition of--and feel for--what the law is. You wouldn't believe how flawed previous systems were, how difficult it was to build this one, or how beautiful this system can be. You couldn't begin to appreciate its ability to self-correct, or how close it comes to working. And you'll never be able to do anything, for yourself or others, relating to the law. Your opinion won't be worth much without the effort, skills, and knowledge a legal education or apprenticeship can provide.

But, since you seem to know your premise is flawed, some thoughts:

Get that the law is a set of society's agreed-upon rules, not all of which are in the service of truth, beauty, etc.. Many of them are the result of "balancing competing interests": a compromise between ugly alternatives. For example: spouses are not compelled to testify in criminal trials, because way back in the history of jurisprudence, it was considered more important to safeguard the institution of marriage than to, for example, guarantee the prosecution of a murderer. There are thousands of things like this: every attempt to write a rule is an adventure into unintended consequences.

These rules are also usually the floor on human behavior: any conduct below this line, and you are exposed to punishment or liability. In other words, they are the lowest common denominator between enforceability, popularity, effectiveness, constitutionality, and a few other factors. They are also influenced by lobbies and other interests that may be disproportionately powerful, in part because closing the door to those interests has greater adverse consequences.

Joel Bakan's The Corporation you've probably come across. It's light, but recent and clearly written, describing an old problem. It discusses the origins of the notion that a corporation's sole purpose is to generate a return for its shareholders. This means that any behavior that is above the legally required minimum, if it costs the shareholders money, is essentially a failure by corporate managers and directors. This idea drives a lot of things, including labor and employment law, intellectual property litigation and regulation, the environment, finance.

I'll leave the reading list to others.
posted by Phred182 at 12:22 PM on May 13, 2008

Agreed with others on knowing what you want to get out of your study. Do you want to get into mindset of a practicing lawyer and be able to look at a fact situation and come up with potential arguments for either side? Or are you more interested in thinking about how well (or poorly) the current rules interface with the real world or what's "right"?

From what you've mentioned as your interests and your phrasing, I take a flying leap of unfounded guessery and suspect that you're more interest in the latter than the former. If that's the case, you're not going to get anywhere without going through at least the Examples and Explanations on contract law. A lot of labor employement and an even bigger part of corporate shenanigans has to do with contracts. It's all about contracts. All of it. You need to learn the terms of art and the way that the law looks at written language. A tour through the first chapters of a contracts casebook (read: handsome-looking law school textbook, exorbitantly priced to match) is even better, as it'll give you a feel for the language and process of the courts.

I don't have particular recommendations for contracts and torts, but given the complexity of Supreme Court cases, Erwin Chemerinsky's Constitutional Law is pretty much essential if you don't have a professor who'll give you background and context.

I also recommend a good Remedies casebook, so you understand what happens after the lawsuit is over and why Fixing Stuff is so hard. I'm a fan of the one by Douglas Laycock, which is gone through a couple of editions, so you can get an older edition cheap. Yeah, his notes are long, but it's analytically tight, and he puts a lot of time into looking at currrent cases and how well they fit into legal doctrine.

If you get bogged down in endless details about the goddamned irreparable injury rule or the @*(#)!*(& doctrine of standing and just want something crisp and simple to set you back on course, try snagging a used copy of bar study materials on EBay. I recommend Barbri, as it's totally comprehensive. It doesn't really matter which state, although the state of your residence may be the most interesting. You're interested in the very basic and very, very broad hornbooks. The worksheets, which should be sold with the Barbri set, are an even more condensed.

Alternatively, you can purcahse one of the eight billion or so study guides marketed to law students. The Examples and Explanations series mentioned above varies in quality, but they're usually written in clear, approachable style.
posted by joyceanmachine at 12:57 PM on May 13, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

A year or so ago, I decided that the law was for me.

Problem 1: I didn't have my undergrad. Problem 2: I'm 33, and didn't want to be 40 when I finished. (4 years undergrad, 3 years law school.)

Solution: Find an undergrad program that allows a ton of equivalency tests and prior learning assessments.

I did just that and completed my undergrad in 1 year. I couldn't look down the barrel of 7 years of school. But I could deal with 4 years. I start law school in just a few months. (gulp!)

If you would consider law school were you to already have your undergrad, don't dismiss that posibility out of hand.
posted by ochenk at 1:09 PM on May 13, 2008

IANAL, but it seems to me that if you want to start with "the basics", you begin with the Constitution. I recommend this book.
posted by Class Goat at 2:47 PM on May 13, 2008

Maybe you'd like reading A History of American Law by Lawrence Friedman.
posted by belau at 4:37 PM on May 13, 2008

Hey, y'all are all incredible. This is all helpful. And you're right. (And I'm particularly impressed by the ochenk solution! Huh! One year! Holy smokes.) For future answerers: I'm mostly interested in writing about the law. I like to cover courts and lawsuits as a journalist, but every time I write even the slightest thing, I have to do hours, even days, of research to catch up on even the most basic stuff that any lawyer would know. The best solution of course is to become a lawyer. (If I could--I mean, like, if I could even graduate.) Anyway, thanks to everyone already.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 6:00 PM on May 13, 2008

A journalist covering courts and lawsuits - oh - that's different ....

A. Some topics you should have a working knowledge of:
1. Civil Procedure / Jurisdiction
2. Structure of the court system
3. Concepts - case law, stare decisis, legislation
4. Policy analysis
[At every stage of the game, ask yourself, "Who decides?" and "How do they decide?"]

B. Fast Research Methods:
1. You don't need to do days of research. Or even become a lawyer. You need lawyer friends/contacts. When you have a case, get them to explain things for you over lunch/dinner. It'll go a lot faster, and it'll be more meaningful because you'd have a real context.
2. But still, try to internalize A 1-4. They can help you see where your stories fit into the legal framework. They form your basic legal map.

C. Notes
1. Specific fields will have their own fundamentals.
2. And behind it all you can find philosophy, history, culture, psychology, etc. The well is very deep.
posted by coffeefilter at 12:50 AM on May 14, 2008

Also try this book (but ignore the sub-title. It's definitely not all you need to know about the American legal system).

I nth the Examples & Explanations series as a good source, and for a general introduction to the law, I'd definitely suggest you follow the standard law school trajectory, probably in this order: civil procedure, contracts, torts, property, constitutional law, administrative law, criminal procedure, and criminal law. The reason I suggest this order is:

First start with civil procedure because so much of how cases are interpreted depends on how they ended up before the court. But this subject is very arcane and can be very difficult, so don't kill yourself with it. Just read it quickly, don't worry about the picky details (like the difference between a motion for summary judgment and a motion for judgement as a matter of law -- just understand that both are seeking to end the trial, and that the judge needs to apply particular standards when deciding whether to do so and how). Realize that you'll definitely need to come back to it for more when you're facing a particular case or question. This is important so you can read case law and know why the case is before this particular court, why the question is being considered, how the question will be dealt with, and what the consequences are. This should include the basics of jurisdiction as well. You can save evidence law for later.

Then get the basics of common law. American law is based on the old English common law, and that law is best understood by reading contracts, torts, and property. The language used in these subjects runs through all of the law, and understanding this is essential to understanding everything else you'll read. It will give richness to your writing, and it's interesting stuff besides. I entered law school sure that contracts would be complete torture. Ditto property. They ended up being two of my very favorite classes. Fascinating, fabulous stuff here.

Once that law hit the American shores, it was changed, and the American differences are best understood by reading constitutional law and its derivatives: administrative law and criminal procedure. The Constitution provides endless surprises, and you could spend a lifetime wallowing around in fascinating subjects here. Administrative law sounds dry, but Surprise! the administrative agencies actually make something like 90% of the laws in the U.S., and definitely they shape the American legal landscape far more than most Americans have the faintest notion of. This material is either very easy or very hard, depending on how deep you go. But to understand the law, it's essential. Criminal procedure is a very different kind of constitutional law, and the stuff of TV law shows for the most part. This is where evidence comes in, as well.

Then you are ready for criminal law, which is (my own bitter opinion here) largely reactionary, evidence of how lawmakers respond to current events in rash, ill-considered ways. This is the least doctrinal of the legal areas, and so best left for the end. The previous subjects are based on long-standing historical reasoning; criminal law has some of that. But you can also see the fingerprints of specific incidents in the law, reactions to some horror that escaped prosecution. This is where the law varies most between states, too, so again it's a hard subject to get a grip on.

Besides this rather academic approach, I also strongly recommend reading popular books about specific cases, as they combine several legal areas at the same time, they're interesting easy reads, and they put the law in context. So, I suggest:

Gideon's Trumpet
The Buffalo Creek Disaster
A Civil Action
Arc of Justice

I am sure there are several more I'd recommend, but I've packed all my books in preparation for moving, and can't think of them off the top of my head. I'll add them as they come to mind.

Additionally, there is a series of books called ____ Law Stories, e.g. Constitutional Law Stories, and these are also very good. They take several interesting and/or important cases and delve into them deeply, again to put them in context and analyze them. They're great reading and a good introduction to the law in each area. They're certainly a lot more interesting than the E&E series, which is essentially text book.

And as I said before, send me a private message and I'll be happy to call you and chat about this in person. As coffeefilter said, a personal conversation can save you hours or days of research. Coffeefilter's list of concepts is excellent, but I am not sure what you could read to pick these up. They're generally sprinkled throughout all the other subjects. But again, someone could explain them to you in a few hours. Joyceanmachine's suggestions are very good too, and I agree that the law of standing is insane-making, and frankly for that area of law alone Justice Scalia will find himself in a deep ring of hell. But I digress.

Good luck, and have fun. The law is far more interesting than I'd thought it was before going to law school. It's absolutely gleefully fun, intellectual, philosophical, practical, and tricky as all get out. I love it, and hope you do too.

Capri
posted by Capri at 9:22 AM on May 14, 2008