Will Tomorrow's Lawyer's be Able to do the Job

When I read this article and seen the reference to America, I did a search for the info being referenced
I was surprised to find that some of our up and coming young lawyers will be not much help to someone who needs a lawyer to defend them .
The information concerning law students in America is a couple of years old and not any more comforting then the information concerning law students across the pond today.
Some lawyers who are out in the real world doing what lawyers do best, do not believe that those students doing the complaining will be ready for the pressures of the courtroom when it comes time for them to start their careers.
It’s enough to traumatize a lay person to know how difficult finding a lawyer who has the training and the guts to stand up under pressure , is going to be.

Good.

And, they’re still going to have to hire good typists.

Not all lawyers have to deal with rape.

If you plan on being a real estate attorney, I don’t see any reason why would you have to sit through a class on sexual assault.

In England, you’d think that someone who had to go to court in a wig could handle anything.
I don’t recall my son-in-law complaining that people did this when he was in law school a few years ago. I wonder if they will demand trigger warnings for the bar exam. Or fail it, which is fine since at the moment we have too many lawyers anyway and someone who can’t stand up in court to ugly evidence shouldn’t practice.
Crime scene photos are bad, but I bet some corporate contracts are twice as bloody.

Do you have a real estate job guaranteed? Forever. If not, school is for learning everything.

Choosing to be a lawyer then complaining about how hearing crimes being discussed , traumatizes you , is like choosing to be a chef then complaining about working in a hot kitchen .
These law students need to either stand up and show some grit or make other career choices.
And stop with “the subject is too traumatic to learn about or discuss”
already .

Quotes are from the
Are Today’s Law **Students ** Tough Enough? cite in OP.

.

AFAIK, criminal law is a mandatory and significant course in most law schools in most jurisdictions, including UK, USA, Canada and Australia. But its just one mandatory and significant course out of many, alongside law of contract, delicts/torts, civil procedure, law of evidence, etc.

There is a lot of material to be covered in any criminal law course, especially if the study of specific crimes is included. I cant see more then a couple of lectures being dedicated towards a discussion of rape laws. If a worse case scenario came to light and study /discussion of rape laws were excised from mandatory criminal law courses - what impact would this have? (input from US lawyers / law graduates welcome)

I suspect not much.

Lakai, it is a requirement in most jurisdictions that a lawyer should have a decent grasp of the major branches of law, which would normally include the fundamentals of criminal law, law of contract and others.

Also, few law students, IME, know what field they wish to specialise in.

I am not a US lawyer, but am a lawyer, as offences against the person (which includes sexual offences) constitute a rather large part of criminal law, I would consider skipping it to be a very bad idea.

As it is, in the course of your career you often come across situations which are unpleasant, on occasions you will be the cause of said unpleasantness. And beyond criminal law. Even if you are to take an example above mentioned above, a real estate lawyer, you could see people lose their houses, miss out on their dreams, as a corporate lawyer you will have to advise people as to whom to fore, whom to let go, as a government attorney , you could well be fighting against the continued grant of a pension to a widow…

In short, if you want to become a lawyer, you need to be stout of heart and if (the Daily Mail’s so suspect) article is correct, then the persons requesting them are not really fit to be lawyers.

We studied it in criminal law, but were told ahead of time that there would not be any hypos on the final involving rape or sexual assault which I thought was a good way to handle it.

Particularly in jurisdictions where there is little or no public defender service, indigent criminal defense cases are often assigned by the court to lawyers who sign up to accept such cases. Thus, criminal defense can be a way for a new or struggling lawyer to build a practice, get his or her name known in the community, or just pay the bills. It’s better for those lawyers to have at least taken a course beforehand, rather than show up at the jailhouse, frantically flipping through a hornbook.

In most of the articles it’s mentioned that some professors are catering to the 'traumatized 'students and won’t bring violent crimes or rape laws into the discussions .

Is this something that has a chance to become the norm ?

When I first read these articles , the thought came to mind , that this doesn’t bode well for future victims when they need some one to speak for them in a court room .
I’m fighting ignorance here when I ask this .

My personal experience / knowledge of lawyers and courtrooms could fit in a thimble .

To be honest, I’m actually getting sick of coming across stupid poorly written editorials and blogs on clickbate sites that present some fringe outlier situation without any meaningful supporting research as truth of some massive societal trend.

Last time I checked, there are nearly as many law students as there are practicing lawyers. I’m sure they’ll find someone to take all those rape and murder cases.

Even if they don’t, criminal litigation is but one aspect of being a lawyer. Most of the ones I know have never set foot in a courtroom. They just push papers around for various corporations and big law firms.

Read the article on Leslie Mahaffy and then say that law students who are warned about the content of a case are being coddled.

The video of her rape, murder and dismemberment by hand-held rotary saw was deemed so disturbing by the Court that it was not shown to the public in court, a marked departure from the open court principle.

As well, not many lawyers practise criminal law and many law students know going in that they won’t be doing criminal law. Yes, it’s a required course, but it’s definitely not everyone’s cup of tea. Skipping particularly graphic and disturbing cases, when you know that you’re not doing criminal law, doesn’t strike me as a such a major issue.

N Piper, who has Crowned and defended.

I must respectfully disagree. It’s these cases which make the law and illustrates its purpose and policy. Its necessary that a prospective lawyer be taught them. We don’t need to show hours of torture porn. But reading its transcripts or summary and perhaps seeing some stills OTH would be appropriate.

Not fun. Not pleasant. But necessary. It does make your appreciate exactly how bad it must have been toi endure when its horrible to witness.

I doubt that a newly minted lawyer would find himself defending a rape accused. He would be assigned drunk driving cases, common assault, maybe minor fraud.

The great bulk of lawyers do no criminal defence work at all - literally, never, at any point in their careers - and most of those who do some criminal defence work will never handle a sexual assault case. That’s very much something to be handled by an experiences specialist criminal defence lawyer.

So, is the public imperilled by the prospect that some people may get a JD without ever having read a case dealing with a sex crime? No. There are lots of areas of practice that come up much more frequently than defending sexual assault charges that are not touched on in law schools, and somehow we manage.

From reading the replies here . and the articles about and replies from lawyers and law students .
now I know more then I did., thanks…

I agree with your first point, but not your second.

Sexual crimes are pretty common. My very first trial (while still in law school) involved public indecency. By my second year as a public defender, many of my cases were rape and assault.

This thread shows why it’s better to be a pie-slicer (ie legal worker) than pie-baker (ie health care worker).

In the multiply revivified zombie thread below, there are some who seem to be actually calling for nurses and doctors to be required to give ‘hand-jobs’ to their patients.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=665339&page=6

In this thread, there are numerous people who think it’s okay for these guys to get a pass on actually learning how to do their g^% job.
Whatever- I guess all people care about is that these guys can argue, so if they can argue their way into an “A” without having to learn stuff, then I guess they have earned it.