Comments on: The path to academia — is practical experience disqualifying?

By: Daryl Levinson

Daryl Levinson — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 02:20:46 +0000

For what it’s worth, the Record’s summary of what I said is a bit misleading. The quote they used was taken from my parodic description of recent hiring trends at HLS in particular—where it is true that most (though not all) of the entry-levels hired over the past few years are PhDs without significant practice experience. This was in the broader context of my describing the general trend in legal academia away from the profession and towards the academy, and the concomitant decline (obviously not to zero, but still remarkable) in the number of entry-level hires who come with high-level practice experience (i.e., more than a few years in practice). I actually expressed some normative doubt about whether this trend has been good for legal education. That’s certainly a point worth debating, but the present reality of the situation is important to recognize as well.

By: Geoff

Geoff — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:54:38 +0000

Levinson said that significant practice experience is “disqualifying,” not that it was a “disqualifier”, and I think there is a difference. I find it had to believe that any school — even Harvard — would hold against a candidate practical experience. The wisdom, insight, and sometimes useful (although sometimes boring and irrelevant) war stories that come with extensive practice experience certainly add value to a law school.

But significant practice experience may be “disqualifying” (in practice) because it tends not to co-occur with some of the other things that schools are requiring these days for new hires. There are of course countless exceptions, but I think it’s fair to say that:

(1) Many top schools are now almost exclusively looking at joint degree (J.D/Ph.D) types. This is true even as you get into the “second tier”. Realistically, most joint degree types will not have both a Ph.D. (4-8 years) and “significant” practice experience (which I would probably define as more than six years of legal practice, not counting clerkships). Those candidates do exist, but they are rare. To the extent that interdiciplinary approaches are so highly valued, and graduate study gives time for publication, the joint degree and Ph.D. types may just be squeezing out the more seasoned practitioners.

(2) The other problem that seasoned practitioners sometimes face is, have they written? To be credible, they must have written SOMETHING. But to a law faculty, for better or for worse, bar journal articles largely don’t count. The problem someone out of law school for a decade or more may face is that, if they haven’t found time to publish recently, their notes and other academic writing are a decade old. While such a person might be in touch with “real world” concerns, they are likely out of touch with “academic” concerns. Choosing between someone whose legal scholarship agenda is current, and someone whose isn’t, I think faculties (again, rightly or wrongly) tend to go with the person they can imagine seeing plugged in to a current thread in the literature.

(3) People with long term practice tend to have more geographic roots and are less mobile. If you have lived and practiced for a decade in a particular city, are you willing to pick up and move to some far off state to teach? If you are, you’ll have a chance at a job. If you aren’t — and your AALS form is filled with restrictions and conditions — you’re dead. I have not done the empirical work on this, but my strong suspicion is that candidates with the longest tenures in practice also tend to be the ones most likely to embrace self-defeating geographical restrictions (that may be viewed with suspicion even by those schools in the preferred geographical area).

By: Bruce Boyden

Bruce Boyden — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:12:51 +0000

I wonder if there’s a distinction here between schools; practical experience might be anathema at Harvard and other places, but less of a “disqualifier” elsewhere.

I for one am very thankful when I teach class that I have some idea of how what I am talking about actually works in practice.

By: Wanna-Be Law Prof

Wanna-Be Law Prof — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:11:07 +0000

Levinson said pretty much the same thing at an HLS alumni conference in May. As someone with a couple of years’ practice under his belt, and who would prefer to practice for two more years (to gain experience/insight, and to pay school debt), I found his routine to be deeply discouraging.

That said, I’m very glad to hear your contrary view.

In the same vein, a few thoughts on the current state of practice/consulting among professors would be most welcome. While I very much would like to go on the market in the next year or two, I hesitate out of concern that I won’t be able to make legal practice a consistent (which is not to say prominent) part of my career.