| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
The Benefits of Empathy in a Legal Education
The current divorce from reality in legal education | | | The Role of Empathy
If we instead wish our work not to be a means of income to provide happiness for ourselves and our families, but for our work itself to be our actual source of happiness, then viewing the law as divorced from emotion and persons is more problematic. In my first draft, I focused on the lottery concept discussed in class and implored us find room for sympathy. Sympathizing for a person, however, does not get us far (beyond being decent human beings), nor is it necessarily connected to our recognition of the chances of life. Approaching legal problems with instead empathy can give us a greater sense of understanding our clients and viewing how the legal system should work. When we recognize the chances of birth, it requires us to apply a veil of ignorance to the law—to determine how the law should operate. This can make us better advocates for our clients and make us more comfortable in our own skin.
Learning Empathy | |
<
< | Learning to empathize with our clients seems to be as useful a legal tool as understanding the language and requirements of contracts. Yet our law school experience provides us with little opportunity. Should not understanding the formalities of legal doctrines be better matched with learning to understand the kinds of legal problems people born in other situations face in the world, and how we can help them? The Carnegie foundation for Advancement in Educating Lawyers suggests that law school should be more like an apprenticeship to the legal profession, much like medical school for doctors. Doctors must practice in many areas before choosing a career. If law school were not only about learning legal doctrines, but also familiarizing students with the different paths in the law, I believe that we would be better prepared to make our professional choices after law school and that Professor Moglen would get fewer distressed phone calls from former students in personal crises. | >
> | Learning to empathize with our clients seems to be as useful a legal tool as understanding the language and requirements of contracts. Yet our law school experience provides us with little opportunity. Should not understanding the formalities of legal doctrines be better matched with learning to understand the kinds of legal problems people born in other situations face in the world, and how we can help them? The Carnegie foundation for Advancement in Educating Lawyers suggests that law school should be more like an apprenticeship to the legal profession, much like medical school for doctors. Doctors must practice in many areas before choosing a career. If law school were not only about learning legal doctrines, but also familiarizing students with the different paths in the law, I believe we would be better prepared to make future professional choices and that Professor Moglen would get fewer distressed phone calls from former students in personal crises. | | | The role of empathy in Biglaw | |
<
< | Now, the problem remains as pointed out earlier that citing a need for empathy assumes we will have one-on-one contact with clients, which, based on Columbia’s statistics, most of us will not. I struggled with seeing what role empathy could play in the law if we represent corporations and have litter client interaction. I came up with some possibilities, but not compelling ones. This posed another struggle—empathy seems a valuable part of legal practice—so what does it mean if many of the legal roles I can play do not offer the chance to utilize it? For me, it has made me recognize that, if I want my work itself to be a source of happiness, I cannot divorce law from reality. I suspect I am not alone in this. I recently participated in interviews for Project-Chairs of Domestic Violence Project’s pro-bono programs. A common factor was a desire to make what we are learning in law school meaningful. Applicants mentioned that participation in the projects finally gave meaning to the law—meaning that was absent in the 1L curriculum. I have the growing suspicion that a number of us will not find this lack of meaning not only during law school, but also in our professional lives. | >
> | The problem remains as pointed out earlier that citing a need for empathy assumes we will have one-on-one contact with clients, which, based on Columbia’s statistics, most of us will not. I struggled with seeing what role empathy could play in the law if we represent corporations and have litter client interaction. I came up with some possibilities, but not compelling ones. This posed another struggle—empathy seems a valuable part of legal practice—so what does it mean if many of the legal roles I can play do not offer the chance to utilize it? For me, it has made me recognize that, if I want my work itself to be a source of happiness, I cannot divorce law from reality. I suspect I am not alone in this. I recently participated in interviews for Project-Chairs of Domestic Violence Project’s pro-bono programs. A common factor was a desire to make what we are learning in law school meaningful. Applicants mentioned that participation in the projects finally gave meaning to the law—meaning that was absent in the 1L curriculum. I have the growing suspicion that a number of us will not find this lack of meaning not only during law school, but also in our professional lives. | | | Where I will go from here | |
<
< | I don’t think this need mean we can’t be find meaning in the law unless we are working at non-profit public interest organizations. For me, reflecting on these issues has most of all made me want to consider fields that allow for a lot of client contact and a focus on the effect of my services. Among the options I’ve come up with so far, are working in estate planning & trusts, or with legal issues surrounding artifacts and world heritage sites. I’d also like to work with victims of domestic violence and victims of gender discrimination. These are, admittedly, completely unrelated areas of the law. The common thread to me is the chance to have a direct and positive impact on the lives of people. This seems most obvious with victims, but also comes into play by helping people plan for the future of their children after they are gone. Working with the legal intricacies of ancient artifacts has an impact not only on the pride of nations but on the education of the future. | >
> | I don’t think this need mean we can’t be find meaning in the law unless we are working at public interest organizations. For me, reflecting on these issues has most of all made me want to consider fields that allow for a lot of client contact and a focus on the effect of my services. Among the options I’ve come up with so far, are working in estate planning & trusts, or with legal issues surrounding artifacts and world heritage sites. I’d also like to work with victims of domestic violence and victims of gender discrimination. These are, admittedly, completely unrelated areas of the law. The common thread to me is the chance to have a direct and positive impact on the lives of people, or cultures as the case may be with antiquities. | | | | |
<
< | My point in sharing the options I’ve considered is to demonstrate that I don’t think connecting the study of law to its impact on people need necessarily mean we restrict ourselves to a certain class of jobs. Teaching more empathy in law school and connecting legal study to real-world impact would not make Columbia a specialized public interest school. I believe it would instead encourage us all to think not only about the kinds of legal problems we want to solve, but about the effect that we want to have on the world. | >
> | My point in sharing the options I’ve considered is to demonstrate that I don’t think connecting the study of law to its impact on people need necessarily mean we restrict ourselves to a certain class of jobs. Teaching more empathy in law school and connecting legal study to real-world impact would not make Columbia a specialized public interest school. It would instead encourage us all to think not only about the kinds of legal problems we want to solve, but about the effect that we want to have on the world. | | |
|
|