Preparing Law Students for Legal Practice

Hall Kath O'Brien Molly Townes & Tang Stephen , ‘Developing a Professional Identity in Law School: A view from Australia’ (2010) 4 Phoenix Law Review 21, 22 (fn 5) and 36–7. See also, eg, Osborn John , ‘Bleak House: Narratives in Literature and Law School’ (2007–2008) 52 New York Law School Law Review 339, 340, fn 4; Tani Massimiliano & Vines Prue , ‘Law Students' Attitudes to Education: Pointers to Depression in the Legal Academy and the Professions?’ (2009) 19 Legal Education Review 3, 5–6.

Sommerlad Hilary , ‘Researching and Theorizing the Process of Professional Identity Formation’ (2007) 34 Journal of Law and Society 190.

Osborn , above n 1, 340. See also Sheldon Kennon & Krieger Lawrence , ‘Understanding the Negative Effects of Legal Education: A Longitudinal Test of Self-Determination Theory’ (2007) 33 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 883, 895, and Tani and Vines , above n 1, 27.

See, eg, Krieger Lawrence , ‘Institutional Denial About the Dark Side of Law School, and Fresh Empirical Guidance for Constructively Breaking the Silence’ (2002) 32 Journal of Legal Education 112, 114–5; Seligman Martin Verkuil Paul & Kang Terry , ‘Why Lawyers are Unhappy’ (2005) 10 Deakin Law Review 49, 64.

Hall O'Brien & Tang , above n 1, 51. See also Seligman Verkuil and Kang , above n 4, 61.

Sommerlad , above n 2, 210.

Flood John , ‘Doing Business: The Management of Uncertainty in Lawyers' Work’ (1991) 25 Law and Society Review 41, 42–3.

Meek Jason , ‘From Conflict to Creativity: Building Better Lawyers through Critical Self-Reflection’ (15 October 2011) <http://ssrn.com/abstractid=1883746>.

MacCormick Neil , Rhetoric and the Rule of Law (Oxford University Press, 2005), 272.

Flood , above n 7, 44.

Wade John , ‘Meet MIRAT: Legal Reasoning Fragmented into Learnable Chunks,’ (1990–91) 2 Legal Education Review 283, 288.

MacCormick , above n 9, 277–8.

Posner Richard , How Judges Think (Harvard University Press, 2008), 374.

Ibid 348.

See, eg, Sunstein Cass , ‘Commentary on Analogical Reasoning’ 106 Harvard Law Review 741 (1992–93); Brewer Scott , ‘Exemplary Reasoning: Semiotics, Pragmatics, and the Rational Force of Legal Argument by Analogy’ 109 Harvard Law Review 923 (1995–96); MacAdam Alastair & Pyke John , Judicial Reasoning and the Doctrine of Precedent in Australia (Butterworths, 1998); Hunter Dan , ‘Reason is Too Large: Analogy and Precedent in Law’ 50 Emory Law Journal 1197 (2001); Weinreb Lloyd , Legal Reason: The Use of Analogy in Legal Argument (CUP, 2005); MacCormick , above n 9, Posner, above n 13, 180–191; Alexander Larry & Sherwin Emily , Demystifying Legal Reasoning (CUP, 2008); Schauer Frederick , Thinking Like a Lawyer (Harvard University Press, 2009); Farrar John , ‘Reasoning by Analogy in the Law’ 9 The Judicial Review (2009), 309; Maxeiner James , ‘Law without Justice? Do the Right Thing and Reform Legal Reasoning’ (15 October 2011) http://works.bepress.com/maxeiner/2; Parkinson Patrick , Tradition and Change in Australian Law (LawBook, 4th ed, 2010).

See, eg, Alexander & Sherwin , above n 15, 2.

See, eg, Calleros Charles , ‘Introducing Civil Law Students to Common Law Legal Method through Contract Law’ (2011) 60 Journal of Legal Education 641, 645.

Ibid 649.

Menkel-Meadow Carrie , ‘Aha? Is Creativity Possible in Legal Problem Solving and Teachable in Legal Education?’ (2001) 6 Harvard Negotiation Law Review 97, 140–141.

With respect to Hall, O'Brien & Tang, above n 1, 42 who in fact suggest this.

Miler Nelson & Charles Bradley , ‘Meeting the Carnegie Report's Challenge to Make Legal Analysis Explicit – Subsidiary Skills to the IRAC Framework’ (2009–2010) 59 Journal of Legal Education 192, 219.

Ibid 218.

For a brief review of the underlying negotiation theory (which is also relevant to Diagram 2) see Menkel-Meadow , above n 19, 101–3.

E.g. Weatherall Kimberlee & Webster Elizabeth , ‘Patent Infringement in Australia: Results from a Survey,’ (2010) 38 Federal Law Review 21, 43, fn 37, indicate that recent Australian research data suggests a success rate of about 40% compared to about 50% in the United States according to a 2005 study.

Weinreb , above n 15, 76–7.

Ibid 92.

Calleros , above n 17, 642–3.

Posner , above n 13, 40. Sunstein , above n 15, 757 acknowledges that analogical reasoning must be ‘tested against other possibilities’.

Rakoff Todd & Minow Martha , ‘A Case for Another Case Method’ (2007) 60 Vanderbilt Law Review 597, 604, fn 17. See also Flood, above n 7, 67.

See, eg, Menkel-Meadow , above n 19, 135–7.

8 Ala. 131 (Ala. S. Ct. 1845). See Calleros , above n 17, 657–9.

The report is set out in full in Casto William & Ricks Val , ‘Dear Sister Antillico: The Story of Kirksey v Kirksey’ (2006) 94 Georgia Law Journal 321, 322–3.

Ibid 324.

Ibid 325.

Australian Professional Legal Education Council, Competency Standards for Entry Level Lawyers, February 2002, 25. See also Moskovitz Myron , ‘Beyond the Case Method: It's time to teach with problems’ (1992) 42 Journal of Legal Education 241, Rakoff and Minow , above n 29.

I do not regard IRAC or MIRAT as true problem solving methods. Metzler Jeffrey , ‘The Importance of IRAC and Legal Writing’ (2002–2003) 80 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 501 regards IRAC as an aid to legal writing relevant especially to litigation. Moens Gabriel , ‘The Mysteries of Problem-Based Learning: Combining Enthusiasm and Excellence,’ (2006–07) 38 University of Toledo Law Review 623, regards MIRAT as a problem-based learning tool useful in training mooting teams in analytical and problem-solving skills.

Dietrich Joachim , ‘Law Threshold Lowers the Bar’, The Australian (Sydney), Higher Education supplement, 30 March 2011, 32.

Posner , above n 13, 209.

As advocated, eg, by the Australian Law Reform Commission Report 89, Managing Justice (2000), paragraph 2.78. See also Menkel-Meadow , above n 19, 140.