Academic

My last word in this interesting forum.

I suggested that we should think about how to select and train legal entrepreneurs to deal with the "creative ddestruction" that is sweeping through our industry. Gordon and Usha responded in various ways that this isn't a good approach to turning out transactional lawyers. 

I need to clarify. My comment was not part of the extensive debate on how law schools can do a better job of turning out lawyers for the current version of law practice, particularly including how to make them ready for practice on day one, rather than leaving this training to law firms.  My reference to "creative destruction" referred to the coming new world of conveying legal knowledge that I discuss in my article. In this world, law-trained people will use their expertise in ways we're only beginning to glimpse, including business consulting, creation of legal products, research and development, more sophisticated legal software, etc.  The common thread is that all this is outside the box of lawyers giving customized advice to individual clients. 

I'm not suggesting this is what all law practice will be in the future.  But I am suggesting this is where the growth is likely to come, while traditional forms of customized-advice practice shrink.  I understand that we'll have to change some of the existing professional rules to get there.  My article discusses some reasons why that is likely to happen.

Because we don't know what the future will look like, we should improve but not abandon the current model.  However, we have to remember that we're preparing our students for a future that is very unlikely to look anything like the present.