{"title":"Can Law Survive Legal Education","authors":"E. Weinrib","doi":"10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660643.003.0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Legal education exists at the confluence of three activities that reciprocally affect one another: legal practice, the enterprise of understanding that practice, and university study. The disjunction between legal practice and university study has been criticised for its attendant disservice to the legal profession. This article argues that the disjunction arises out of the different understandings of law that animate legal practice and contemporary university study. Focussing on private law and using the example of economic analysis, the article underlines the role of instrumentalist understandings of law in mischaracterizing legal practice. It also sketches a different mode of legal understanding that both respects legal practice and affirms private law as a component of our intellectual inheritance worthy of university study in its own terms. Finally, the article discusses the use of nuisance cases in Coase's famous article on social cost, in order to show the shortcomings of the current conception of interdisciplinary study. By marking out the distinctive mode of thinking and discourse in law, the author points to a conception of the core of legal education that links the three activities of practice, understanding, and university study.","PeriodicalId":47503,"journal":{"name":"Vanderbilt Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2007-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vanderbilt Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660643.003.0010","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8
Abstract
Legal education exists at the confluence of three activities that reciprocally affect one another: legal practice, the enterprise of understanding that practice, and university study. The disjunction between legal practice and university study has been criticised for its attendant disservice to the legal profession. This article argues that the disjunction arises out of the different understandings of law that animate legal practice and contemporary university study. Focussing on private law and using the example of economic analysis, the article underlines the role of instrumentalist understandings of law in mischaracterizing legal practice. It also sketches a different mode of legal understanding that both respects legal practice and affirms private law as a component of our intellectual inheritance worthy of university study in its own terms. Finally, the article discusses the use of nuisance cases in Coase's famous article on social cost, in order to show the shortcomings of the current conception of interdisciplinary study. By marking out the distinctive mode of thinking and discourse in law, the author points to a conception of the core of legal education that links the three activities of practice, understanding, and university study.
期刊介绍：
Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc is an online forum designed to advance scholarly discussion. En Banc offers professors, practitioners, students, and others an opportunity to respond to articles printed in the Vanderbilt Law Review. En Banc permits extended discussion of our articles in a way that maintains academic integrity and provides authors with a quicker approach to publication. When reexamining a case “en banc” an appellate court operates at its highest level, with all judges present and participating “on the bench.” We chose the name “En Banc” to capture this spirit of focused review and provide a forum for further dialogue where all can be present and participate.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
