Michael Madison

Consider a possible constitutional (small c) convention about the future of law and the legal profession, and legal education in particular. The first two posts have described the case for such a conversation. [Part I, here] [Part II, here] This post concerns the subject matter. A later post will consider the coalition of potentially interested participants.

In the first post in this series [Part I, here], I tried to suggest — briefly — the case for urgency as the foundation for a change-management inspired conversation about the future of legal education.

Based on that case, my suggestion is the following. It’s the second part of the invitation promised at the start of that post, which highlighted the time sequence of innovation in US legal institutions.

Modern law schools were invented before modern law practice emerged.

I mean that statement as the first part of an invitation, rather than as the first part of an argument. The invitation, below and in several posts to follow, is to participate in conversations about the future of legal education in ways that integrate rather than distinguish several threads of concern and revision that have emerged over the last decade.