This isn’t just a problem in Law Schools. The Arts, more broadly, has a similar problem, only it’s worse. Even the remaining academics who are not critical theory activists are retiring and their students, read the writing on the wall don’t bother even entering academia. It’s very difficult to get funding full stop, let alone funding that doesn’t have a ‘sexy’ ie critical theory twist, or is not directly relatable to some kind of technological ‘innovation.’
No one is willing to fund archive ratting, (history/politics) real quantitative studies (in sociology) or anything that might vaguely reflect positively on Western Civilisation (aside from a few private colleges). There are few academics interested in properly teaching those ‘non-sexy’ bread and butter courses like ‘Introduction to Western Civ’, or World Politics, or even just Classical literature and poetry. With Law we risk forgetting how society and justice works. If we forget the Arts, we forget who we are.
Is it any wonder our young people are adrift and going nuts?
I would actually love teaching a course called Introduction to Western Civilisation. And yes, the blunt truth is that it’s easier to have a grand theory than it is to do archival research, quantitative study etc.
For me, having a broad knowledge of history (not a cartoon or cherry picked version full of oppressors and oppressed, either) has been really important. It has informed all my works: legal, fiction, and historical works.
of years when my little ones are ready to let me out of sight for more than an hour. I have never regretted choosing a private Catholic University where I got to do Western Civ without constant deconstruction and cynicism (that came later in the degree). I had plenty of left-leaning professors but they were committed teachers and scholars first. They understood that the most effective critique and growth comes from love, not resentment, wrath or envy. They wanted to build something, not just shred it all. It made a huge difference.
I enjoyed your post, Katy, thank you. I am not a lawyer but I do negotiate complex contracts. It is self evident that the contracting process proceeds at the pace of the slowest corporate lawyers ( or their chosen legal advisors). Forget Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping or the second limb of Hadley vs Baxendale, warranty, liability and indemnity clauses are negotiated as if Monty Python’s Fish Slapping Dance was the primary reference source for both parties. The commercial balance of power determines the “negotiated” position during interminable back and forth about “departures” from the client’s original Ts&Cs.
Meanwhile, far away, in another part of town, business practitioners and procurement people are urging agility and NEC4 contracts avoid the “lawyers at ten paces” that both slows contracting and drives up legal fees. Cui bono? My point is that exposure of academics to practitioner issues is not just about philosophical points of principle about remoteness. I’m listening to Subterranean Homesick Blues as I write this, and his Bobness sings “you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows!”
There will always be contractual disputes but I think the big legal practices are clinging to anachronistic “model contracts” which drive up their billings but are no longer fit for purpose in a world where the parties want to compress cycle times.
If i was a cynical and grumpy old man i would suggest that there will be increasing supply of forty-something lawyers who have been made redundant from the large legal practices by AI-driven contract negotiation, the business imperative to compress contract negotiation cycle times, the impatience of clients with practices that serve the interests of their legal advisors and the emergence of new contractual vehicles to deal with uncertainty.
I doubt many would want to enter academia given the stories that are now being told by Janet Albrechtsen and others but I would suggest it would be a step forward for the legal profession and a huge benefit for the students. It would address (some of) the succession issue, but not address the need for academics to leave the gardens of academe for the grubby corporate world from time to time.
But who knows? The times they are a changing, and perhaps mass redundancies at larger practices might create some part time vacancies? 😎
LOL, I used to do front end banking contracts when I was an articled clerk and hence I laughed at the quip about the pace of the slowest corporate lawyers. And yes, there will always be contractual disputes. One of the things I tell students about in Remedies is of Ea-Nasir and Nanni, in Ur in Mesopotamia, fighting over copper quality.
I have thoughts on model contracts, particularly in relation to construction contracts (oh dear, maybe don’t start me, but pushing risk down on the smallest parties least able to bear it is not really efficient…).
Let’s see what happens: times they are a changin’, I’m pretty sure.
I'm not an expert, but get the feeling the same is true of Engineering academics vs practitioners. I know a few who have straddled the divide, but it is a very few - and (speaking as a practitioner), it's very obvious that they still don't really "get it" (that is, understand what we all actually do out here).
As an early career researcher, I HAVE to connect my work to one of the more PRESSING issues such as climate change, human rights or some critical theory if I ever want to get funding. It is not that there is no space for private law research. It is more the case that there ARE few people committed to private law research even at the senior levels who have available funding to train younger scholars. I think that there is a missing ecosystem in private law. For example, in conversations with colleagues, some have pointed out how they shifted away from researching UK Land Laws to some oversubscribed public law area as they could not find any funding opportunities to conduct much needed archival work. However, law practitioners will tell you how UK Land Laws are a maze because of complex aristocratic history of land owning and constantly changing regulations. We have supply of people interested in private law, but no demand in contemporary law departments to nurture it.
I've been teaching in law 30+ years. The few remaining Hobbits must not give it to despair. This is an exciting time to be alive and there will always be challenges. So let's get on with it!
It’s a real shame that academia and private practice in Australia can’t get the best out of each other. As a recently retired English & Welsh lawyer, the training highlight of the year was when Ed Peel of the University of Oxford delivered his contract law update - a terrific blend of the doctrinal and practical and always the best attended session (especially by the non litigation lawyers). It undoubtedly helped that he has a side hustle at a leading commercial chambers in London.
As for the relative unpopularity of the core subjects, I once pondered the idea of doing a postgraduate MA in retirement. I was interested in financial services. A cursory trawl through various university websites revealed a big bias towards human rights and the environment - very important topics but they didn’t float my boat. Contract, tort and property are too important to the fundamentals and deserve equal billing alongside more contemporary themes.
This is the thing. I don’t mind other things getting billing, but it would be nice for private law to get equal billing. I hope that my writings will help prod a closer relationship between academia and practice. Some of my colleagues consult with firms, and they have great practical knowledge.
I'm a PhD student and this resonates a lot with me. I would have loved to do doctrinal research in private law but it became apparent very early in the application process that it would be almost impossible to get funding for something so un-sexy.
I think the idea of seeking sponsorship from firms that really need students to know this stuff is a good one.
I'd also like to see law schools offering teaching-based PhD scholarships in areas of the core private law curriculum (I think this used to happen years ago in the UK but they seem to have gone out of fashion)
This isn’t just a problem in Law Schools. The Arts, more broadly, has a similar problem, only it’s worse. Even the remaining academics who are not critical theory activists are retiring and their students, read the writing on the wall don’t bother even entering academia. It’s very difficult to get funding full stop, let alone funding that doesn’t have a ‘sexy’ ie critical theory twist, or is not directly relatable to some kind of technological ‘innovation.’
No one is willing to fund archive ratting, (history/politics) real quantitative studies (in sociology) or anything that might vaguely reflect positively on Western Civilisation (aside from a few private colleges). There are few academics interested in properly teaching those ‘non-sexy’ bread and butter courses like ‘Introduction to Western Civ’, or World Politics, or even just Classical literature and poetry. With Law we risk forgetting how society and justice works. If we forget the Arts, we forget who we are.
Is it any wonder our young people are adrift and going nuts?
I would actually love teaching a course called Introduction to Western Civilisation. And yes, the blunt truth is that it’s easier to have a grand theory than it is to do archival research, quantitative study etc.
For me, having a broad knowledge of history (not a cartoon or cherry picked version full of oppressors and oppressed, either) has been really important. It has informed all my works: legal, fiction, and historical works.
Me too! Maybe in a couple
of years when my little ones are ready to let me out of sight for more than an hour. I have never regretted choosing a private Catholic University where I got to do Western Civ without constant deconstruction and cynicism (that came later in the degree). I had plenty of left-leaning professors but they were committed teachers and scholars first. They understood that the most effective critique and growth comes from love, not resentment, wrath or envy. They wanted to build something, not just shred it all. It made a huge difference.
I enjoyed your post, Katy, thank you. I am not a lawyer but I do negotiate complex contracts. It is self evident that the contracting process proceeds at the pace of the slowest corporate lawyers ( or their chosen legal advisors). Forget Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping or the second limb of Hadley vs Baxendale, warranty, liability and indemnity clauses are negotiated as if Monty Python’s Fish Slapping Dance was the primary reference source for both parties. The commercial balance of power determines the “negotiated” position during interminable back and forth about “departures” from the client’s original Ts&Cs.
Meanwhile, far away, in another part of town, business practitioners and procurement people are urging agility and NEC4 contracts avoid the “lawyers at ten paces” that both slows contracting and drives up legal fees. Cui bono? My point is that exposure of academics to practitioner issues is not just about philosophical points of principle about remoteness. I’m listening to Subterranean Homesick Blues as I write this, and his Bobness sings “you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows!”
There will always be contractual disputes but I think the big legal practices are clinging to anachronistic “model contracts” which drive up their billings but are no longer fit for purpose in a world where the parties want to compress cycle times.
If i was a cynical and grumpy old man i would suggest that there will be increasing supply of forty-something lawyers who have been made redundant from the large legal practices by AI-driven contract negotiation, the business imperative to compress contract negotiation cycle times, the impatience of clients with practices that serve the interests of their legal advisors and the emergence of new contractual vehicles to deal with uncertainty.
I doubt many would want to enter academia given the stories that are now being told by Janet Albrechtsen and others but I would suggest it would be a step forward for the legal profession and a huge benefit for the students. It would address (some of) the succession issue, but not address the need for academics to leave the gardens of academe for the grubby corporate world from time to time.
But who knows? The times they are a changing, and perhaps mass redundancies at larger practices might create some part time vacancies? 😎
LOL, I used to do front end banking contracts when I was an articled clerk and hence I laughed at the quip about the pace of the slowest corporate lawyers. And yes, there will always be contractual disputes. One of the things I tell students about in Remedies is of Ea-Nasir and Nanni, in Ur in Mesopotamia, fighting over copper quality.
I have thoughts on model contracts, particularly in relation to construction contracts (oh dear, maybe don’t start me, but pushing risk down on the smallest parties least able to bear it is not really efficient…).
Let’s see what happens: times they are a changin’, I’m pretty sure.
I'm not an expert, but get the feeling the same is true of Engineering academics vs practitioners. I know a few who have straddled the divide, but it is a very few - and (speaking as a practitioner), it's very obvious that they still don't really "get it" (that is, understand what we all actually do out here).
As an early career researcher, I HAVE to connect my work to one of the more PRESSING issues such as climate change, human rights or some critical theory if I ever want to get funding. It is not that there is no space for private law research. It is more the case that there ARE few people committed to private law research even at the senior levels who have available funding to train younger scholars. I think that there is a missing ecosystem in private law. For example, in conversations with colleagues, some have pointed out how they shifted away from researching UK Land Laws to some oversubscribed public law area as they could not find any funding opportunities to conduct much needed archival work. However, law practitioners will tell you how UK Land Laws are a maze because of complex aristocratic history of land owning and constantly changing regulations. We have supply of people interested in private law, but no demand in contemporary law departments to nurture it.
This is the problem. There’s a real issue.
I've been teaching in law 30+ years. The few remaining Hobbits must not give it to despair. This is an exciting time to be alive and there will always be challenges. So let's get on with it!
Yay for the hobbits…
It’s a real shame that academia and private practice in Australia can’t get the best out of each other. As a recently retired English & Welsh lawyer, the training highlight of the year was when Ed Peel of the University of Oxford delivered his contract law update - a terrific blend of the doctrinal and practical and always the best attended session (especially by the non litigation lawyers). It undoubtedly helped that he has a side hustle at a leading commercial chambers in London.
As for the relative unpopularity of the core subjects, I once pondered the idea of doing a postgraduate MA in retirement. I was interested in financial services. A cursory trawl through various university websites revealed a big bias towards human rights and the environment - very important topics but they didn’t float my boat. Contract, tort and property are too important to the fundamentals and deserve equal billing alongside more contemporary themes.
This is the thing. I don’t mind other things getting billing, but it would be nice for private law to get equal billing. I hope that my writings will help prod a closer relationship between academia and practice. Some of my colleagues consult with firms, and they have great practical knowledge.
I'm a PhD student and this resonates a lot with me. I would have loved to do doctrinal research in private law but it became apparent very early in the application process that it would be almost impossible to get funding for something so un-sexy.
I think the idea of seeking sponsorship from firms that really need students to know this stuff is a good one.
I'd also like to see law schools offering teaching-based PhD scholarships in areas of the core private law curriculum (I think this used to happen years ago in the UK but they seem to have gone out of fashion)
These are all really good points. And I’m sad you couldn’t get funding. Maintain the love of private law!