Frank,
Here is my nickel's worth on this subject. I think Bob Berring strikes close
to the heart of our dilemna: unlike most other disciplines (with the
exception of the non-deconstructed study of literature) in which the recorded
text can never be more than secondary, in law the text is all. Consequently,
teaching legal research to persons with little or no understanding of the law
(substance and procedure) or the odd language in which it is written becomes
an especially difficult enterprise. Matters are further complicated by the
fact that many 1L's, especially the brighter ones who are likely to pick up
the concepts and language faster than their classmates, haven't the foggiest
idea why a course in legal research is important. That bit of understanding
usually comes after the first research projects, or writing competition, or
summer clerkship.
So, Bob is right: legal research is much easier to teach to 2L's & 3L's.
They know something of the concepts and language and, perhaps more important,
they are much more likely to appreciate the need for instruction in the
subject. Yet, Al Brecht is also right: we do have an obligation to teach
something of legal research to 1L's for all of the reasons he gives. I think
that we should hold minimalist goals for the first year: an understanding of
the basic structure of the literature (and the link between it and the
structure of the legal system and the concepts of the law) and an
appreciation that the library can be of far more value than as a mere study
hall. For that, if no other reason, first year legal research is important -
it is our best marketing shot at the students.
How do we do this? At the original USC and this year (as an experiment) at
OSU, we have taught legal research to 1L's in the first six weeks of the
second semester. This has the advantage of shortening the learning curve (a
semester's immersion in the jargon does help) and giving the students a
somewhat better framework in whick to place legal research. The drawback is
that those students (and faculty) who feel legal research should be taught at
the beginning of the first semester believe that too much time has been lost.
The six week time span seems about right; it is long enough to get through
the basics (cases, statutes, regulations, secondary sources, strategies)
without being so long that everyone, including those of us who teach it,
loose interest. It is not a perfect method of teaching legal research and we
find the "appreciation" factor the toughest hurdle to get over. It does have
possibilities though and, unless the faculty kills it off, I will continue to
tinker with this model. In the meanwhile, I am still looking for the better
mousetrap and have been reading the responses to your query with great
interest.
A final question: when should LEXIS/WESTLAW be taught? As part of first
year legal research? Separate from first year legal research and, if so,
early in the first year, or later on, or in the second year?
Over and out from Buckeyeland,
Bruce Johnson, OSU
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/07/00 PST