University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Practice ready curriculum in law school education: an exploratory study

(USC Thesis Other)

Practice ready curriculum in law school education: an exploratory study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Practice Ready Curriculum in Law School Education:
An Exploratory Study
by
Eliyah Fey Kabeya
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
December 2022

© Copyright by Eliyah Fey Kabeya 2022
All Rights Reserved

.

The Committee for Eliyah Fey Kabeya certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Milana Hogan
Helena Seli
Jennifer Phillips, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv

Abstract
Preparedness for a career in litigation plays a vital part in how well recent law school graduates
will perform upon graduation. The purpose of the study was to explore whether changes made to
law school curriculum after the inception of the American Bar Association’s Standard 303(b)
accreditation sufficiently prepare recent law school graduates for a career in private practice as a
litigator from the perspective of law firm hiring managers. The study examined how prepared
recent law school graduates are based on law school education alone and law school education
combined with experiential learning opportunities. Fifteen law firm hiring managers were
surveyed and five hiring managers were interviewed to assess their perceptions on preparedness
among recent law school graduates based on their experience as both employers and former
recent graduates. The results suggested insufficiency in preparedness among recent law school
graduates for a career as a litigator; further, hiring managers in this study did not report an
increase in preparedness even when including experiential learning into the law school
curriculum. The lack of preparedness was attributed to various factors by law firm hiring
managers, including a lack of interpersonal skills and a lack of knowledge regarding the practical
application of practicing law in recent law school graduates. Lastly, this study recommends a
need to revise existing procedures and mandates currently used in law school curriculum in order
to better prepare recent law school graduates for practice as a litigator upon graduation. It is
recommended that (a) law school curriculum continue to use the case method of learning to
teach, (b) the American Bar Association revise the Standard 303(a) mandate to redefine
experiential learning, and (c) paralegal experience be added as a qualifier to the Standard
303(a)(2).

v

Dedication
To my husband, parents, siblings, and family, I could not have achieved this without your love
and support. A very special thank you to my mother for inspiring me throughout my educational
journey. Thank you all for being my greatest support system through this journey. I dedicate this
dissertation to you.

vi

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the chair of my committee, Dr. Jennifer
Phillips, for her invaluable patience and feedback. I could not have completed this journey
without her support and guidance. Additionally, this endeavor would not have been possible
without the support of my other two committee members Dr. Helana Seli and Dr. Milana Hogan.
Thank you so much for your guidance and expertise throughout this process. I am grateful to
have had you both as a committee member.
Special thank you to all my professors at the University of Southern California Rossier
School of Education. Thank you for the wealth of knowledge you have provided me with over
the last few years. I am also grateful to my classmates who have supported me throughout the
years and provided feedback and moral support. Thank you for walking through this journey
with me. Lastly, I would like to thank my family, especially my spouse and parents. Thank you
for your endless love and support and for believing in me.

vii

Table of Contents
Abstract ....................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Dedication............................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... xi
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... xiiii
Chapter One: Introduction..........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Background of the Problem .......................................................................................... 2
Importance of Addressing the Problem.......................................................................... 3
Field Context and Mission ............................................................................................ 4
Field Global Goal ......................................................................................................... 6
Description of Stakeholder Groups ........................................................................... 6
Purpose of the Study and Questions .............................................................................. 8
Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework ........................................ 8
Definitions ................................................................................................................. 10
Organization of the Project ......................................................................................... 12
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature................................................................................... 13
Law School Curriculum.............................................................................................. 13
Early History of Legal Education ................................................................................ 14
The Case Method Approach to Legal Education .......................................................... 15
Critique of Law School Education .............................................................................. 16
Early Critiques ........................................................................................................... 17
The Carnegie Report .................................................................................................. 18
Industry Critiques of Law School Curriculum ............................................................. 21
Revising the Standards for Accreditation..................................................................... 22

viii

Declining Employment Rates in Legal Industry........................................................... 23
Clark and Estes’s (2008) Gap Analytic Framework ..................................................... 25
Knowledge Influences ................................................................................................ 26
Metacognitive Knowledge............................................................................... 26
Conceptual Knowledge ................................................................................... 27
Procedural Knowledge ............................................................................... 28
Organizational Influences ........................................................................................... 29
Providing Opportunities for Experiential Learning to Students.......................... 30
Socialization into Private Practice.................................................................... 31
Conceptual Framework............................................................................................... 32
Summary ................................................................................................................... 35
Chapter Three: Methodology ................................................................................................. 37
Research Questions .................................................................................................... 37
The Researcher .......................................................................................................... 38
Data Sources: Survey and Interview............................................................................ 39
Method 1: Survey............................................................................................ 40
Participants.......................................................................................... 40
Instrumentation.................................................................................... 41
Data Collection Procedures .................................................................. 42
Data Analysis ...................................................................................... 43
Validity and Reliability ........................................................................ 44
Method 2: Interviews ...................................................................................... 44
Participants.......................................................................................... 45
Instrumentation.................................................................................... 45
Data Collection Procedures .................................................................. 45

ix

Data Analysis ...................................................................................... 46
Credibility and Trustworthiness............................................................ 48
Ethics and Role of Researcher .................................................................................... 48
Chapter 4: Results and Findings ............................................................................................. 50
Survey Participants..................................................................................................... 52
Interview Participants ................................................................................................. 53
Research Question 1 ................................................................................................... 54
Survey Results ................................................................................................ 55
Interview Findings .......................................................................................... 61
Summary ........................................................................................................ 63
Research Question 2 .............................................................................................. 65
Survey Results ................................................................................................ 67
Interview Findings .......................................................................................... 73
Summary ........................................................................................................ 75
Research Question 3 ................................................................................................... 76
Interview Findings .......................................................................................... 76
Summary ........................................................................................................ 79
Summary of Results and Findings ............................................................................... 79
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations .................................................................... 81
Discussion of Results and Findings ............................................................................. 81
Recommendations For Practice ................................................................................... 84
Recommendation 1 ......................................................................................... 85
Recommendation 2 ......................................................................................... 86
Recommendation 3 ......................................................................................... 89
Integrated Recommendations ...................................................................................... 90

x

Evaluation Using the Kirkpatrick New World Model................................................... 92
Limitations And Delimitations .................................................................................... 93
Recommendations for Future Research ....................................................................... 95
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 96
References ............................................................................................................................ 98
Appendix A: Pre-Invitation Email ........................................................................................ 109
Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ........................................................... 110
Appendix C: Survey Protocol............................................................................................... 112
Appendix D: Interview Questions Protocol ........................................................................... 119

xi

List of Tables
Table 1: Recent Law School Graduate Employment Data 5
Table 2: Field Mission and Field Goal 7
Table 3: Data Sources 38
Table 4: Interview Color Coding Used for Analysis 47
Table 5: Likert Scale Options 51
Table 6: Survey Participants Law Firm Size 52
Table 7: Interview Participants 53
Table 8: Survey Results: Law School Alone 57
Table 9: Survey Results: Performing Steps of Litigation 60
Table 10: Survey Results: Law School Education Alone vs.
Law School Education Combined with Experiential Learning –
Conceptual Level of Knowledge and Higher 70

Table 11: Quote Summary from Interviews 1: Law School
Education Combined with Experiential Learning 74

Table 12: Quote Summary from Interviews 2:
Organizational Challenges 78

Appendix A: Pre-Invitation Email 109
Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research 110
Appendix C: Survey Protocol 112
Table C1 112
Appendix D: Interview Questions Protocol 119
Table D1 121

xii

List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework – Law School Education 34

1

Chapter One: Introduction
Legal industry experts have increasingly expressed their concerns regarding the lack of
preparedness for the practice of law amongst recent law school graduates (Barry, 2012; Katz,
2013). As a result, some law firms who once sought students from top tiered institutions are
seeing less value in hiring recent graduates (Niedwiecki, 2015). Judges and experienced
attorneys have criticized law schools for producing students who are well versed in legal theory,
yet inexperienced in legal practice (Derocher, 2012). A 2015 study found that 95% of hiring
managers and associates believe recent law school graduates lack key practical skills at the time
of hiring (Lexis Nexis, 2015), demonstrating that the lack of preparedness among law school
graduates is a significant problem for the profession.
Industry leaders perceive recent law school graduates as deficient in practical knowledge,
including writing and drafting of legal documents as well as advanced research skills (Lexis
Nexis, 2015). Law firms, who once provided recent graduates with time to learn the job,
increasingly became unwilling to take on additional training expenses (Barry, 2012; Managan,
2011). As a result, unemployment rates among recent graduates were at an all-time high, with an
even bigger increase from 2008 until 2017 (Burke, 2019). Law schools have been challenged to
include practice ready content in their curriculum to prepare students for the profession (Katz,
2013; Niedwiecki, 2015). In 2016, the Standard 303 was created by the American Bar
Association to evaluate law school curriculum (Stark & Hunt, 2019). This study explored
whether the changes made to law school curriculum after the inception of the Standard 303(b)
accreditation sufficiently prepare recent law school graduates for a career in private practice as a
litigator.

2

Background of the Problem

The Carnegie Foundation’s 2007 report on law school education titled, “Educating
Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law,” suggested recent law school graduates lack
practice ready skills (Sullivan, 2018). These skills included writing and drafting documents, trial
level briefs and pleadings, discovery documents, deposition questions or summaries, familiarity
with e-discovery and conference briefs, and advanced research skills (Miller, 2015; Sullivan
etal., 2007). In addition, the report recommended law schools integrate experiential learning into
their curriculum to develop practical skills within their law students (Barry 2012). Unlike other
professions, which require up to more than half of pre-licensing graduate education to be in a
supervised role within the field of practice, law school education does not mandate similar
requirements of its students (CLEA, 2014). Subsequently, the lack of practical experience in
recent graduates has increasingly caused some law firms to be reluctant about hiring first year
lawyers (Derocher, 2012; Managan, 2011).
In 2011, United States Senators Barbara Boxer and Charles Grassley wrote several letters
to the American Bar Association’s (ABA) law school accreditation with their concerns regarding
law schools misleading employment data on job placements for their recent graduates (Derocher,
2012). Further speculation prompted U.S. Senator Tom Coburn to request the Inspector General
of the U.S. Department of Education examine American Law Schools who consistently increased
tuition, but continuously had poor job placement amongst their new graduates (Tamanaha,
2012). In response, the ABA Section of Legal Education began an evaluation of their standards
for accreditation (Niedwiecki, 2015). As a result of this evaluation, the Standard 303(a) was
created to prevent law schools from only teaching their students doctrinal law and legal analysis
(Stark & Hunt, 2019).
3

The initial revised set of standards required law students to complete at least six credit
hours of experiential courses in the form of law clinics, field placements, or simulation courses
(ABA-SRPA, 2021; Niedwiecki, 2015; Stark & Hunt, 2019; Sullivan, 2018). Although the
changes illustrated a progressive turn in law school education, the ABA recognized the difficulty
law schools would face in placing every student (Katz, 2013). The Standard 303(b) was formed
shortly after, requiring law schools to provide students with “substantial opportunities” in law
clinics, field placements, or pro bono legal services (ABA-SRPA, 2021; Niedwiecki, 2015; Stark
& Hunt, 2019; Sullivan, 2018). However, changes to Standard 303 did not prevent law schools
from relying on simulation courses to teach students practice ready skills rather than field
placements in the form of internships, externships, and clerkships (ABA-SRPA, 2021; Sullivan,
2018).
Importance of Addressing the Problem

The lack of practice preparedness in recent law school curriculum is important to solve
for a variety of reasons. Industry respondents have become more unwilling to pay for the
additional training costs for recent law school graduates (Niedwiecki, 2015). As a result, data
shows that some industry leaders avoid hiring recent graduates and opt to hire more tenured
attorneys (Burke, 2019; Lexis Nexis, 2015). This trend has directly led to declining job
placement rates for recent law school graduates, and fewer available entry level law jobs (Stark
& Hunt, 2019).
Statistical data show the rate of entry level positions obtained by the class of 2017 was
26% lower than the class of 2007 (Burke, 2019). However, lower job placements for graduates
have not prevented law schools from increasing tuition (ABA, 2020). In 2010, the average
tuition and fees for public law schools for residents increased to $18,007, and $37,330.17 for
4

private law schools. Low employment rates for recent graduates and increasing tuition has
contributed to high student loan debt for law school graduates (Tamanaha, 2012). The average
federal loan borrowing rate for law students during the 2015-2016 school year was 66% (Miller,
2020), with an average overall debt per student at $145,500 per student (Lane, 2021). In July
2020, the American Bar Association reported an additional increase in law school debt at
$160,000 per student. The increasing law school tuition and low job placement rates continues to
increase law school debt among recent graduates and minimizes the social return of a law school
education (Field, 2006; Burke, 2019).
Field Context and Mission
Law schools are graduate institutions that provide legal education for individuals wanting
to become lawyers. Law school education is commonly three years of full-time education or four
years of part-time study. Upon completion, students are awarded a Juris Doctorate Degree, which
serves as the official credentialing for the field of practice (Holmquist, 2012; Lexis Nexis, 2015).
Law schools have historically been regarded as elite institutions that equip their students with the
theoretical skills needed to be successful upon entry into practice (Sullivan, 2018). Unlike other
doctoral degrees, a law school education develops the ability to use analytical reasoning as a
measure of scholarly achievement (Holmquist, 2012).
The 2008 recession made the probability of gaining a high paying job at a large law firm
increasingly difficult, with a decrease of 15,000 job openings by 2012. Most of the major law
firms reduced their recruiting process by more than half. As a result, 50,100 jobs were lost
between 2008 and 2011 (Managan, 2011). Additionally, the National Association for Law
Placement (NALP) reported an employment rate for recent law school graduates at 87.6 percent
(Polchin, 2012). This was the lowest employment had been in 15 years. In 2019, employment for
5

recent law school graduates increased by 3.6%, with 73.6% of graduates gaining employment in
rolls that require Bar passage (ABA, 2020). Employment in law firms increased by 1.2%, with
48.1% of recent law school graduates acquiring positions in private practice (ABA, 2020).
Unlike other pre-licensing doctoral programs, a law school education aims to unify the thought
process of students to an industry standard way of thinking (Lexis Nexis, 2015; Miller, 2011;
Sullivan, et al., 2007).

Table 1

Recent Law School Graduate Employment Data
Survey year 2018 2019 2020 2021
Employment for
recent graduates
who passed the bar
70.1% 73.7% 71.8% 75.6%

6

Field Global Goal
The field global goal for law schools is to ensure law school graduates are equipped with
the practical skills they need to be successful upon entry into practice. In 1897, the American Bar
Association declared that legal education should be modeled on scientific training (Weiser,
2011). Ultimately, first year law students are introduced to the case method of learning, utilizing
case dialogue through the Socratic method of teaching to analyze concepts from a legal
perspective (Sullivan, 2018). This process of learning is defined by the American Bar
Association Committee on Legal Education as the “science law” (Spencer, 2012; Weiser, 2011).
The Socratic method uses probing questions to produce a specific answer in students and
evaluate each student’s ability to “think like a lawyer” (Sullivan et al., 2007, p. 5). The overall
purpose of law school education is to teach its students to dissect problems by using inductive
reasoning (Spencer, 2012; Weiser, 2011).
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Although a complete analysis of this study would involve students, law firm hiring
managers, and law school faculty and administration, this study aimed to support organizational
performance through understanding how prepared recent graduates are for a career as a litigator
in private practice. Law students are the most directly impacted by this problem of practice and
the greatest potential beneficiaries from this study, but their experience and perspective is not
sufficient to assess preparedness for litigation given that they have recently graduated from law
school. Therefore, the stakeholders of focus for this study were hiring managers of law firms.
Hiring managers are private practice attorneys who have been assigned to oversee or participate
in the attorney hiring process at their firm. For the purpose of this study, hiring managers
consisted of litigation partners and attorneys who have been litigating for the last 6 years. Having
7

been law school students at one point themselves, hiring managers were able to provide first-
hand insight into the gaps in skill set of recent law school graduates from a knowledge and
organizational perspective.
This research intended to provide law schools with recommendations on changes that
would better produce practice ready graduates from the perspective of hiring managers. Failure
to accomplish this goal will have led to continued deficiencies in practice preparedness among
recent law school graduates. The lack of preparedness in new lawyers will continue to increase
declining job placements for recent law school graduates, which will adversely increase the
industry’s overall unemployment rate. Furthermore, recent law school graduates will be left with
high student loan debt due lack of employment. Table 2 provides a summary of the field mission,
field performance goal, and stakeholder’s performance goals.

Table 2
Field Mission and Field Goal
Law school field mission
A law school is an educational institution that prepares students for a career as a lawyer.
Law school performance goal
To ensure law school graduates are equipped with the practical skills they need to be
successful upon entry into the field of law.

8

Purpose of the Study and Questions
The purpose of the study was to explore whether changes made to law school curriculum
after the inception of the American Bar Association’s Standard 303(b) accreditation sufficiently
prepare recent law school graduates for a career in private practice as a litigator from the
perspective of law firm hiring managers. A complete performance evaluation would focus on all
stakeholders, but for practical purposes, the stakeholder focused on in this analysis was the hiring
managers. The analysis focused on hiring managers’ perceptions of how prepared recent law
school graduates are for a career in practice as a litigator upon completion of law school. Hiring
managers in this study were private practice attorneys responsible for hiring new associates.
They were expected to be able to accurately examine the level of preparedness of recent law
school graduates based on both their experience as hiring managers and as law school graduates
themselves.
The questions that guided this study are the following:
1. What are the law firm hiring managers perceptions regarding how prepared recent law
school graduates are to practice law as a litigator based on the current law school
education?
2. What is the perception of law firm hiring managers regarding how effective experiential
learning opportunities are in preparing law school graduates to practice law as a litigator?
3. What organizational challenges do law firms face when hiring recent law school
graduates for hire as a litigator?
Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analytic framework is a problem-solving approach that
examines stakeholder knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences in pursuit of
9

performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). This mixed methods study uses a modified approach to
this framework in that only knowledge and organizational influences were explored. Although
the Clark and Estes KMO normally focuses on a particular stakeholder of interest, this study
examined hiring managers as both law school graduates and as individuals who also have the
advantage of seeing new graduates develop in their career.
Hiring managers are positioned to provide insight into these influences, but they are not
positioned to offer insight into recent law school graduates’ motivation. Additionally, it is
important to note that the actual knowledge of law school graduates is not measured in this
study, only the perception of hiring managers regarding what knowledge they think newly barred
graduates both need and are often lacking when considering the goal of hiring practice ready
attorneys who require minimal to no training.
The methodological framework is a mixed method approach. This study examined the
knowledge and organizational influences that promote practice preparedness in recent law school
graduates based on feedback from hiring managers, and asses the benefits of experiential
learning opportunities during law school. The quantitative part of this researched used two
variations of a Likert scale survey to collect data. The surveys were administered through
Qualtrics and sent to each participant following a pre-invitation email. This descriptive survey
assessed how hiring managers at U.S. based law firms perceive the preparedness of recent
graduates for a career in litigation. The findings from this survey were used to identify
recommend changes to law school curriculum.
The qualitative part of this research interviewed five hiring managers to assess law firm
organizational challenges in employing newly barred graduates. The interviews for this study
were administered via Zoom Video Conference to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The
10

interview questions consisted of open-ended questions followed by probing questions to specify
details of the participants responses.
Definitions
• AM Law: The American lawyer organization that ranks US based law firms across the
globe (The American Lawyer, 2021)
• AM Law 100: American law firm ranked within the top 100 law firms across the globe
(The American Lawyer, 2021)
• AM Law 200: American law firm ranked within the top 200 law firms across the globe
(The American Lawyer, 2021)
• Hiring Managers: Leader of a law firm who manages the operations and employees of
the firm (Lexis Nexis, 2015).
• Law School: A legal educational institution required for credentialing as a lawyer
(Weiser, 2011)
• Law School Student: A student enrolled in a legal institution, and pursuing a Juris
Doctorate degree (Marks & Moss, 2016)
• Practice Ready: An individual that is equipped with the necessary skills needed to
practice law (Lexis Nexis, 2015; Sullivan, 2018)
• Recent Graduate(s): An individual who graduated from their specified institution within
the last 12-months
• Recent Law School Graduate(s): An individual who graduated from their specified law
school institution within the last 12-months
• Standard 303(a): The American Bar Associations requirement for law schools to offer a
curriculum that requires each student to satisfactorily complete at least the following:
11

o (1) one course that is a minimum of two credit hours that includes substantial
instruction in the history, goals, structure, values, and responsibilities of the legal
profession and its members;
o (2) a minimum of one supervised writing experience in the first year and a
minimum of one additional supervised writing experience after the first year
o (3) a total of six credit hours of one or more experiential course(s). Experiential
courses must be in the form of a simulation course, a law clinic, or a field
placement. Courses must be primarily experiential in nature and must:
▪ (i) integrate theory, skills, doctrine, and legal ethics, and require students
to engage in performance of one or more of the professional learning
outcomes identified in Standard 302;
▪ (ii) provide and develop the concepts based on the professional skills
being taught;
▪ (iii) provide students with multiple opportunities for legal performance;
and
▪ (iv) provide students with opportunities for self-evaluation (ABA, 2021).
• Standard 303(b): The American Bar Associations requirement for law schools to provide
substantial opportunities to students for:
o (1) law clinics or field placement(s); and
o (2) participation in pro bono legal services, including law-related public service
activities (ABA, 2021)

12

Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with the
key concepts and terminology regarding law school education. The field’s mission, goals and
stakeholders and the framework for the project were introduced. Chapter 2 provides a review of
current literature surrounding the scope of the study. Topics of law school curriculum, defining
practice ready, and experiential clinical legal education will be addressed. Chapter 2 also
presents the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences of recent law school graduates
that will be explored via the study. Chapter 3 details the methodology when it comes to choosing
of participants, data collection and analysis. In Chapter 4, the data are assessed and analyzed.
Chapter 5 provides recommendations for practice and for future research.
13

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Law schools hold themselves in high esteem for adequately preparing students for the
profession of law (Derocher, 2012; Sullivan, 2018; Sullivan et al., 2007). The conveyance of
doctrine through a direct analysis of significant cases has been the dominant approach to
teaching law students, and this approach is merited for helping students understand legal
material. However, the lack of practice ready content within the law school curriculum became
increasingly publicized in 2007, when industry leaders began criticizing law schools for
inadequately preparing students for the practice of law (Ferguson, 2007; Katz, 2007; Holmquist,
2012). Subsequently, the lack of practical experience in recent graduates has prompted some law
firms to be reluctant about hiring first year lawyers (Derocher, 2012). Despite the efforts of the
American Bar Association to mandate experiential learning in law schools, research shows a
decline in the employment of new graduates (Burke, 2019; Niedwiecki, 2015). This literature
review explores the history of law school education and how well it prepares students for
practice as a litigator. Following review of the literature on curriculum and legal practice
preparation, the focus of the literature review turns to the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analytic
framework, specifically examining current literature and research regarding the knowledge and
organizational influence practice ready curriculum has on students.
Law School Curriculum
The case method has traditionally been the standard method of education in American
law schools. This method of teaching combines the Socratic method of learning and case
dialogue to teach law school students legal reasoning. Additionally, law school educators rely on
the combination of both Socratic method and case dialogue to teach their students to analyze
cases using legal reasoning (Mangan, 2011; Mertz, 2007). Moreover, the combination of case
14

dialogue and the Socratic method has become the building block of most law schools in the US
(Sullivan et al., 2007), and is often referred to as the case method (Maxeiner, 2007; LexisNexis,
2015). The next sections discuss the early history of law school education, and the case-method
approach used to educate law students.
Early History of Legal Education
The American Bar Association was formed in 1878 to improve the profession of law and
standardize legal education (Weiser, 2011). Although the original recommendations by the ABA
Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar were rejected, they were later adopted
in 1879. Subsequently, the committee decided that legal education should be modeled on
scientific training and declared the case method as the science of law (Spencer, 2012; Weiser,
2011). In addition, the ABA also rejected the idea of being able to practice law without passing
the Bar examination and began pushing to make the Bar a requirement for the practice of law as
an attempt to standardize legal education (Spencer, 2012). By 1899, the ABA created the
Association of American Law Schools (AALS) to help create a unified Bar, and further rid the
legal profession of immigrants who did not think or speak like them. Subsequently, the process
of unifying the way lawyers think, evolved throughout the century, and was adopted by law
schools as the foundation of their curriculum (Derocher, 2012; Holmquist, 2012; Katz, 2007;
Sullivan, 2018; Sullivan et al, 2007). It became the responsibility of law school education to
teach its students to adopt a unified mentality by way of rigorous dialogue on textual matters.
Consequently, the Socratic based method of learning and case dialogue was adopted by law
schools to analyze cases and rulings (LexisNexis, 2015; Mangan, 2011; Sullivan, 2018). This
method uses probing questions to produce a specific answer and evaluate each student’s ability
to “think like a lawyer” (Mangan, 2011; Mertz, 2007).
15

The Case Method Approach to Legal Education
The Socratic method of learning was adopted by law schools to assist students in
analyzing concepts from a legal perspective (Niedwiecki, 2015; Sullivan, 2018; Sullivan et al.,
2007). Named after the Greek philosopher Socrates, the Socratic method prompts students to
“think like a lawyer” by strategically asking a series of questions to generate a specified
outcome. In sum, this method has been adopted as an essential teaching tool within law school
education and serves as a means to elicit a higher level of thinking (Mertz, 2007). Subsequently,
law schools use the boot camp and accountability aspects of the Socratic method when educating
within the classroom (Madison, 2008; Peterson, 2009). The boot camp approach is commonly
utilized in law school institutions as a style of teaching (Niedwiecki, 2015; Sullivan, 2018;
Sullivan et al., 2007). The goal of the professor becomes to "break "the student, by asking
question after question until the student no longer has a viable response. This approach is used to
establish dominance in a classroom setting, and mimics interactions within the courtroom. The
accountability approach is also utilized by law schools by the professor asking students a series
of questions to assess whether they have read the assigned material. The student’s response
notifies the educator on the student’s preparedness for class. Overall, both approaches are used to
foster critical thinking in law students (Madison, 2008; Niedwiecki, 2015; Peterson, 2009;
Sullivan, 2018; Sullivan et al., 2007).
The Socratic method is also used in law schools based on its similarity to the cross-
examination process. The series of caught questions

in a continuous manner, is meant to expose
the students’ knowledge and contradict the student’s ideas. Similarly, this thinking approach is
also a way for students to find flaws in the thought process of others (Abrams, 2015; Sullivan et
al., 2007). In essence, the debate-like engagement of Socratic-based questioning enhances the
16

student’s public speaking skills needed as a litigator (LexisNexis, 2015; Mangan, 2011; Peterson,
2009; Sullivan, 2018). Coupled with case dialogue, students are taught to dissect problems by
using inductive reasoning (LexisNexis, 2015). Combined, case method is used to unify the
thought process of students to a singular frame of thought, when assessing legal concepts
(Dickenson, 2009; Niedwiecki, 2015; Sullivan et al., 2007).
Case method is a pedagogy that was introduced by Christopher Columbus Langdale, the
former Dean of Harvard law school in the late 1800s (Mangan, 2011; Spencer, 2012). This
method introduces law students to legal rules, judicial opinions, and case concepts. Students are
taught to dissect cases and examine the “whys” of court’s rulings. Subsequently, cases serve as a
neutral source used to educate students on legal doctrine and apply a linguistic approach that
requires students to take heed to specific contextual doctrine (Niedwiecki, 2015; Sullivan, 2018).
This standard legal curriculum revealed that foundational legal doctrine that further enhances the
student’s linguistic abilities. Ultimately, the case method teaches students to “think like a
lawyer,” by teaching students how to understand cases and rulings of law from a legal point of
view. However, this method has been criticized for its inability to teach students the practical
application of law (Holmquist, 2012; Sullivan, 2018; Sullivan et al., 2007). In 2007, The
Carnegie Report criticized law school education for failing to prepare its students for the
practical application of law. Ultimately, findings from the report prompted concerns amongst
industry leaders, leading to attempted changes in law school curriculum by the American Bar
Association (Dickenson, 2009; Niedwiecki, 2015; Sullivan et al., 2007; Wegner, 2011).
Critique of Law School Education
The 2007 Educating lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of law, also referred to as
“The Carnegie Report,” was not the first attempt of The Carnegie Foundation for Advancement
17

of Learning to address issues with legal education (Dickenson, 2009; Maxeiner, 2007;
Holmquist, 2012). The earliest attempts to review law school education can be dated back to
their 1914 study, The Common Law and Case Method in American University Law Schools by
Josef Redlich. This study was used to examine the case dialogue and Socratic method of teaching
used by law schools. Although findings recognized the benefits of the case method, it also
warned against its overuse. The study confirmed its insufficiency in completely preparing
students for the practice of law. Subsequently, findings from their study prompted other scholars
to examine the legal profession (Holmquist, 2012; Spencer, 2012). The 2007 Carnegie report
later confirmed that the case method is only effective in socializing students into a standard of
legal thinking (Ferguson, 2014; Miller, 2015; Sullivan et al., 2007; Wegner, 2011). This is
commonly referred to as “thinking like a lawyer.” Findings from the report also found that the
case method fails at providing training needed for the practice of law and developing student’s
professional identity compared to other professions. This section will review early attempts to
critique and reform law school education, the influence of the Carnegie Report, and legal
industry critiques of law school education.
Early Critiques
In 1921, Alfred Z. Reed published an intense study on the profession of law, titled
Training for the Public Profession of the Law (Sullivan, 2018). Reed believed that law school
education needed to be more practice and client oriented. He concluded that training for lawyers
who desired careers within the federal court system should differ from those seeking to be solo
practitioners handling smaller clients. Reed further suggested that two different Bar examinations
be offered based on the career path of the lawyer. However, the ABA and the AALS found
18

Reed’s suggestions of a dual bar to be anti-democratic and colonial; Reed’s findings were
removed from public view (Spencer, 2012; Sullivan, 2018).
In 1972, The Carnegie foundation produced New Directions in Legal Education, by
Herbert Packer and Thomas Ehrlich. Similar to Reed’s (1921) study, the authors further
examined the evolution of law school curriculum, and the dominance of the case method within
law schools (Pye, 1973; Sullivan, 2018). The authors affirmed that all law schools share the same
structural features which they are bound to and agreed with Reed's recommendations for two Bar
examinations. However, the ABA and AALS also gave little attention to the study and its
recommended changes (Spencer, 2012). Eventually, the ABA gave into groups advocating for
change, and created the MacCrate Report in 1992 to identify the skills and values of lawyers for
educational reform (Miller, 2011; Niedwiecki, 2015). The report recommended law schools
incorporate more skills and values into their curriculum. Furthermore, it prompted the Carnegie
foundation to create Educating Lawyers, a surveyed investigation into the education of the legal
professions (Sullivan, et al., 2007).
The Carnegie Report
By the late 1990s, the Carnegie foundation expanded by including the Preparation for
Profession programs to its study (Ferguson, 2014; Miller, 2015; Sullivan et al., 2007; Wegner,
2011). The program evaluated the preparation of physicians, nurses, engineers, Christian clergy,
and business programs. The aim of the studies was to also improve the quality of professionals
within the United States. In addition, they examined professional preparation within higher
education, and proposed options to increase effectiveness (Weiser, 2011).
During the 1999 to 2000 academic year, the Carnegie foundation began an extensive two-
year study of legal education and professional preparation called Educating Lawyers.
19

Furthermore, the studies reassessed teaching and learning in American and Canadian law schools
and re-examined the educational goal of “thinking like a lawyer” (Dickenson, 2009; Holmquist,
2012, p. 363; Sullivan, 2018, p. 334). The law school samples used for the study were several
selective schools, schools that were freestanding, one historically African American school, and
two schools who focused their attention on Native American enrollment. Institutions were
evaluated using a framework of three formative apprenticeships that were pre-designated as
essential to full preparation for professional work: cognitive apprenticeship, apprenticeship of
skills and practice, and apprenticeship of professional identity (Wegner, 2011).
The cognitive apprenticeship focused on intellectual training provided by law schools. It
evaluated how students learned the academic knowledge, and their capacity to think in a manner
the profession required. The second apprenticeship focused on how legal skills and the
professional craft is transmitted to students. During the late 1990’s, students only gained their
expertise as practitioners through clinical legal education and writing assignments. The third
apprenticeship was concerned with how well students were guided into their field of practice. It
evaluated how well law students adopted the responsibilities and purpose of the profession. The
three formative apprenticeships combined provided a foundation for an analysis of law school
education (Niedwiecki, 2015), and allowed the practice of law to be compared to other
professional industries (Miller, 2011; Wegner, 2011; Sullivan, 2018). In review of the cognitive
apprenticeship framework, the Carnegie Report found the case method of learning to be effective
in promoting the socialization of students to a unified method of cognition (LexisNexis, 2015).
Within the legal industry this is commonly referred to as “thinking like a lawyer” (Niedwiecki,
2015; Stark & Hunt, 2019; Sullivan et al., 2007; Sullivan, 2018).
20

The report found the case method to be an effective means for helping students to adopt
legal literacy and enhance critical thinking. Findings also highlighted how students are prompted
to learn what type of knowledge counts, and how to utilize that knowledge in the practice of law.
Subsequently, the Carnegie Report found that legal education master’s cognitive apprenticeship
better than other professions (Wegner, 2011). Furthermore, a shared set of cognitive practices
were found to be utilized by most programs across the industry (Miller, 2011; Sullivan et al.,
2007; Sullivan, 2018). The report also highlighted the benefits of Socratic teaching in law school
education and found the question answer rhythm useful in courts and legislative environments.
Although the case method has been found to be an effective part of law school education,
Educating Lawyers reported this method of learning as only being effective during the first year
of law school education (Sullivan et al., 2007; Sullivan, 2018). The report found that students
tend to master this method by the end of their first year, making the case method approach less
effective in educating law students during their second and third year.
When assessing the apprenticeship of skills and practice, the Carnegie report highlighted
how law schools spend little time initiating students into the practice of the profession (Miller,
2011; Wegner, 2011). Although the case method proved to be effective in cognitive
socialization, it also failed to provide training on the full range of skills needed to practice law as
a litigator. Subsequently, the Carnegie report highlighted how the overutilization of case
methodology took attention away from the other two apprenticeships, which were equally
important in preparing law professionals for practice (Abrams, 2015; Dickenson, 2009;
Derocher, 2012; Sullivan et al., 2007). The report suggested that law school education pay more
attention to formative methods of learning, as a means to provide a practical learning experience
21

for students. Unlike other professions, law school education lacked the practical skills needed to
educate students on how to practice the profession (Gerkman et al., 2018; Katz, 2013).
The Carnegie Report found the apprenticeship of professional identity and values most
absent in law school education (CLEA, 2014; Miller, 2011; Wegner, 2011). Law schools did not
provide meaningful opportunities for students to engage with practicing professionals. This made
it difficult for students to develop a personal relationship with the profession, and understand the
day-to-day needs, structure, and stressors of the practice. In essence, the report found that
students were very unprepared for the reality and responsibilities of a lawyer (Abrams, 2015;
Sullivan et al., 2007; Sullivan, 2018). Although most law schools required students to take
courses in professional responsibility, the Carnegie report found that the course is only focused
on the cognitive realm of law, rather than the ethical obligations. Sadly, students had to rely upon
guest speakers, special programs, and extracurricular activities to gain understanding on the
reality of practicing law (CLEA, 2014).
Industry Critiques of Law School Curriculum

Similar to the Carnegie report, the 2007 Best Practices for Legal Education report was
designed to evaluate the effectiveness of law school education in preparing students for legal
practice (Madison, 2008). The report demonstrated that legal education generally ignores four
basic principles of curriculum development (Sullivan, 2018); (a) identifying educational
objectives for courses, (b) selecting learning experiences that are likely to be useful in attaining
those objectives, (c) organizing selected learning experiences, and (d) designing methods for
evaluation of the selected learning experiences. Additionally, the report critiqued law schools for
their inability to adapt and urged law schools not to utilize case methods as an exclusive method
of teaching (Madison, 2008).
22

Findings from the Educating Lawyers and Best Practices reports contributed to the harsh
critiques on law school education from industry professionals (LexisNexis, 2015). Practicing
attorneys began challenging law schools for the lack of adequate resources available for students
in the form of clinics, internships, and simulation courses (Derocher, 2012; Dickenson, 2009;
Wegner, 2011). This further affirmed the belief that law schools are not truly fulfilling their
obligation to prepare students for a career in private practice (Spencer, 2012).
In 2012, the Law School Admissions Council’s (LSAC) survey found advertised clinics and
internships to be a leading influence in where law school applicants applied (Stark & Hunt,
2015). Their survey was followed by the After the JD study, which assessed and surveyed
practicing lawyers who were two to three years into their new careers. The lawyers were asked to
rate their law school experiences that prepared them for practice. Summer, clinical, and school
year employment were rated the most important experience in preparing the participants for
practice. Courses in writing were also ranked highly as a valued experience. In addition, the
Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA) 2013 report expressed how law school training today was
not worth the high cost of attendance (ISBA, 2013; Stark & Hunt, 2015). They further
recommended law schools prioritize the implementation of live client clinics in an attempt to
provide students with the opportunity to learn and apply legal principles in the context of real-
life problems. Subsequently, the ISBA report drew awareness to the increasingly declining job
market that recent law school graduates faced as a result of the inadequate training of law
students (ISBA, 2013; Sullivan et al., 2007; Sullivan, 2018).
Revising the Standards for Accreditation
In response to harsh industry critiques of law school education, the ABA Section of Legal
Education evaluated and revised their standards for accreditation in 2016 (Niedwiecki, 2015).
23

They created the Standard 303(a) to prevent law schools from only teaching their students
doctrinal law and legal analysis (Stark & Hunt, 2019; Sullivan, 2018). The initial set of standards
required law students to complete at least six credit hours of experiential courses in the form of a
simulation course, a law clinic, or a field placement. Although the new regulation met its
intended purpose of providing real experience to law school education, law schools were left
with the challenge of handling the costs associated with providing experiential credits.
Although the implementation of Standard 303(a) illustrated a progressive turn in law school
education, the ABA recognized the difficulty law schools would face in placing every student
after the (Katz, 2013; Niedwiecki, 2015). The Standard 303(b) was formed shortly after,
requiring law schools to provide students with “substantial opportunities” in the form of law
clinics and field placements. Changes to Standard 303 no longer required students to take six
hours of an experiential learning courses (Katz, 2013; Niedwiecki, 2015). Though changes to law
school education requirements mandated opportunities for practice exposure, employment rates
amongst new lawyers have increasingly declined over the last decade.
Declining Employment Rates in Legal Industry
Law firms have affirmed their preference in employing lawyers who require minimal
training, which has directly negatively impacted enrollment rates (Burke, 2019; Niedwiecki,
2015). Research suggests that some hiring managers prefer to hire attorneys who have at least
three to four years of practice experience, as junior associates rather than recently barred
graduates, due to their level of preparedness. Furthermore, research confirmed that litigation
hiring managers believe most recent graduates lack practical experience in key skills, such as
drafting settlement agreements, briefs, dispositive motions, deposition questions and interviews,
and jury questionnaires (Lexis Nexis, 2015). Traditionally, young lawyers could once expect to
24

receive in depth on-the-job training from law firms as law firms were considered to provide the
best training a young lawyer could receive (Burke, 2019). Although training young lawyers was
once the responsibility of the partners and department chairs, the increasing demand for legal
services placed increasing pressure on partners to bill more hours and generate more clients.
Subsequently, this contributed to a decline in the amount of time partners were willing to spend
mentoring and training younger attorneys (Barry 2012; Managan, 2011).
Recently barred law school graduates obtained employment in 2017 at a rate that was
26% lower than the class of 2007 (Burke, 2019). The data combined with studies on the field,
suggest employers began noticing a lack of skill set in the areas of advanced research, oral
advocacy, trial procedures, document drafting, and client relations. Subsequently, mid-level
candidates who had experience utilizing such skills became preferential to hire than recently
barred graduates (LexisNexis, 2015). Research has also demonstrated that 95% of hiring
managers believe recent law school graduates lack key practical skills when initially hired
(LexisNexis, 2015). In addition, law firms have increasingly realized that the lack of practice
ready content in law school curriculum is consistent despite the law schools tier and affirmed
that preparedness starts at the education level (Sullivan, 2018). As a result, private law firms
have dramatically reduced their entry-level hiring least, leaving most entry level opportunities to
law related positions that did not require passing the Bar (Stark & Hunt, 2019). Subsequently,
these changes have impacted the overall employment of recent law school graduates, as studies
indicated an increase in applicants to law school during the 2017–2018 admissions cycle (Burke,
2019).

25

Clark and Estes’s (2008) Gap Analytic Framework
The primary goal of law school education is to create practice ready lawyers who are
prepared for practice post-graduation (Tamanaha, 2012). This goal is aligned with the
organizational goal set forth by the American Bar Association, which requires law schools to
provide practice ready curriculum for its students through sufficient opportunities for
experiential learning (Katz, 2013; Niedwiecki, 2015). Unlike the traditional gap analysis model,
which includes motivational influences, a modified gap analysis model was implemented in the
study (Clark & Estes, 2008). Only knowledge and organizational influences were explored as the
participants for this study were hiring managers rather than new law school graduates. An
exploration of the motivation of new law school graduates is not appropriate as they were not
included in this study’s participant sample.
The gap analysis was designed to avoid individual biases and inappropriate solutions via
a thorough study of potential causes of a performance issue (Clark & Estes, 2008). Individuals
often make assumptions regarding the causes of problems within a field. As a result, the lack of
understanding causes individuals to omit or misdiagnose the real cause of performance gaps. The
gap analysis prevents such misdiagnosis by establishing an evaluation and implementation plan
as its final step. It is used to clarify field goal performance level gaps and established the
organizations preferred performance level. The steps implemented in the gap analysis process are
generally as follows: establishing measuring goals, confirming gaps in performance,
hypothesizing causes of those gaps, validating and prioritizing causes, creating solutions, and
assessing outcomes. The modified gap analysis model highlights potential causes for gaps in
performance and evaluates the study in the areas of knowledge and organizational influences
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
26

This study is designed to follow the general steps of a gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The goal of the study is to identify gaps and assets to individual performance, specifically as it
pertains to the performance of new law school graduates as litigators in private practice.
Assumed knowledge and organizational influences would normally be identified in advance to
be evaluated as part of the gap analysis process, but this study’s exploratory approach is designed
to uncover the unique perspective of hiring managers regarding law school graduates’ readiness
to practice law. In the following sections, knowledge and organizational considerations will be
discussed to provide a grounding in the current assumptions and findings in literature related to
law school graduates’ expected capacities. Predetermined assumed knowledge and motivation
influences were be evaluated specifically as part of this study, but Chapter 5 will discuss the
findings of this study and the perspectives of hiring managers in relation to past research.
Knowledge Influences
The gap analysis framework established by Clark and Estes (2008) is utilized in modified
form to explore the knowledge and skills and organizational influences impacting the
performance of new law school graduates as litigators in private practice from the perspective of
hiring managers. Knowledge and skill level of newly graduated lawyers directly impacts their
performance in private practice (ISBA, 2015; Lexis Nexis, 2015). The following sub-sections
examine literary evidence regarding the knowledge and skill has on preparing new lawyers for a
career in private practice as a litigator.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Studies have demonstrated that recently barred law school graduates’ benefit from the
existing metacognitive influences in law school education, which teaches students to ‘think like a
lawyer’ and understand the substantive law (Sullivan, 2018). Subsequently, legal education has
27

been found to prepare its students for the cognitive aspects of their profession better than most
other fields (Miller, 2011; Niedwiecki, 2015; Wegner, 2011). This is attributed to the signature
law school pedagogy, which combines Socratic teaching method with case dialogue.
Furthermore, understanding, interpreting, and applying the law from a substantive perspective is
a metacognitive influence that contributes to being practice ready (Sullivan, 2018). The Carnegie
report recognized that the use of case method is the most effective method for cognitive
socialization into the profession (Sullivan et al., 2007). Ultimately, the use of case method
enhances metacognitive abilities of law students in the areas of legal literacy, critical thinking,
and understanding factual aspects of the law (Sullivan, 2018). Furthermore, new lawyers benefit
from the case method as it prepares them to develop the conceptual knowledge needed for
litigation (Dickenson, 2009; Niedwiecki, 2015; Stark & Hunt, 2019; Sullivan et al., 2007). This
study explores whether the existing case method of learning in law school curriculum is still
sufficient in preparing recent law school graduates for a career as a litigator, by teaching them
how to think like a lawyer.
Conceptual Knowledge
The case method prompts students to acquire conceptual knowledge, including legal
comprehension, analysis, application and evaluation (Dickenson, 2009). Subsequently,
conceptual skills are important for litigators to know what knowledge “counts” in practice, and
how to use that knowledge to benefit their case (Miller, 2011; Niedwiecki, 2015; Sullivan, 2018;
Wegner, 2011). Law school graduates pursuing a career in litigation directly benefit from the
alignment of theory and practice prompted by the case method. It directly shapes the
understandings and knowledge of the student and provides them with a shared set of practices
used across the profession.
28

The case method is also adept in training student to understand concepts of the law in a
way that prepares them for practice. Studies have found that students benefit from the repetitive
pervasive and routine questioning used by law school educators to get students to understand the
law from a singular perspective (Lexis Nexis, 2015; Mertz, 2007; Sullivan, 2018). This dialectic
approach is similar to the question-answer rhythmic orientation, which is seen in courts and
legislative environments. Intense questioning has been proven effective in helping students
understand the conceptual aspects of the courtroom and serves as the catalyst for understanding
the procedural aspects of the law (Sullivan, 2018).
Procedural Knowledge
Law school students require procedural knowledge of law to be successful as litigators
(Holmquist, 2012; Sullivan et al., 2007; Sullivan, 2018). Procedural knowledge of the law
produces practice ready graduates and reduces training costs for law firms. Unlike substantive
law, which uses case dialogue to understand the facts of the case, procedural aspects of the law
teach students the process that a case goes through (Lexis Nexis, 2015). This includes knowing
when to initiate a case, when to respond, statutes of limitations, discovery deadlines, rules of
evidence, and all aspects of a motion practice. A lack of procedural knowledge can cause an
attorney to lose on a winning case. Each court has their own procedures for how cases are
handled, and court procedures are based on the different types of courts: federal, state, appeals
(Bellia, 2001).
Procedural knowledge helps students understand the procedures the courts take to the
side to make decisions on cases in a fair manner. It is primarily an essential skill set for litigators,
as it prevents delays or harassment tactics used by opposing counsel and notifies all parties of
important court dates and items of action that are due. A lack of knowledge on procedural law
29

can cause an attorney to lose a case based on trivial actions, which include typos, late mailings,
failure to notarize, missing signatures, and missed deadlines. Subsequently, private practice
employers have become hesitant to employ recent law school graduates as litigators based on
their lack of exposure to procedural aspects of the practice of law (Burke, 2019; Lexis Nexis,
2015; Managan, 2011).
Organizational Influences
The second influence of the Clark and Estes (2008) Modified KMO gap analysis model is
the “O” that designates organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). For the purpose of this study, the O
influences outlined in the following sub-sections are known institutional aspects of the law
school experience that impact the success of new lawyers in private practice. Past studies have
highlighted the importance of a law student’s socialization with practicing attorneys through
experiential learning to gain their individual identity in the profession (Sullivan et al., 2007;
Sullivan, 2018). The lack of adequate practical exposure and socialization into the profession of
law directly impacts employment rates of recent law school graduates. As a result, deficiencies in
private practice led to the continued increase in unemployment among recent law school
graduates (Managan, 2011). This study’s third research question seeks to explore the perspective
of hiring managers of the organizational challenges they face in integrating law school graduates
into private practice. The expectation is that this study’s research can illuminate the unique
perspective of hiring managers on opportunities for change within law school curriculum to
lessen the burden on legal practice to provide organizational resources and support that law
schools may otherwise be able to provide to law students.

30

Providing Opportunities for Experiential Learning to Students
Although case method has been proven effective in socializing the metacognition of law
students to the profession of law, students require extensive exposure and experiential learning
opportunities to fully adopt the skills needed to be practice ready (Gekman et al., 2015;
Holmquist, 2012; Sullivan, 2018; Sullivan et al., 2007). Industry experts criticize law school
education for not producing practice ready students, and they have expressed how court doctrinal
law and legal analysis was not substantial in preparing students for practice. Furthermore, these
experts have expressed that new graduate’s require fundamental lawyering skills that they assess
is best acquired by direct exposure to practice (Sullivan, 2018; Sullivan et al., 2007). These skills
were highlighted in the 1994 MacCrate Report and include the following: communication,
counseling, litigation and alternative dispute resolution, organization and management of legal
work, and resolution of ethical dilemmas.
The American Bar Association created Standard 303 (a)(3) in 2016 as their response to
industry critics. The Standard 303 (a)(3) required students to complete a minimum of six credit
hours of experiential learning courses, to provide students with opportunities to represent clients
and participate in activities that would better prepare them for the practice of law. Experiential
learning courses were defined as law clinics, simulation courses, or field placements.
Subsequently, mandating experiential learning credits as part of law school curriculum presented
financial challenges for law schools (Sullivan, 2018). The ABA later implemented a new
requirement, Standard 303(b), that requires law schools to provide substantial opportunities for
experiential learning law students, rather than mandating a required six credit hour minimum.
Experiential learning courses have proven to be an effective method of successfully
transitioning recently barred law school graduates into practice (Dinovitzer et al., 2014; Jones,
31

2015; Stark & Hunt, 2015; Sullivan et al, 2007; Sullivan, 2018). The After the Juris Doctorate
2014 study surveyed lawyers who were two to three years into the profession. The researchers
for the study asked these lawyers to rate the importance of their law school experience and
education in helping them transition into the practice of law (Stark & Hunt, 2015). Summer and
school year legal employment was deemed as the second most important aspect of their law
school experience, followed by clinical experiences, then legal and writing internships.
Researchers expressed the importance of law students having the right exposure to private
practice in order to help socialize them into the profession of law. This study explored whether
hiring managers think experiential learning opportunities during law school sufficiently prepares
law school students, both from their current vantage point an given their own experience as
former law school students, for a career in litigation.
Socialization into Private Practice
Law school students need to socialize with practicing lawyers in order to adequately
adopt the profession as their own and gain adequate procedural knowledge. The process of
socialization is equally as important as cognition in ensuring law students are ready for litigation
(Sullivan, 2018; Sullivan et al., 2007). Unlike other professions, the legal industry has
historically placed minimal effort in exposing students to the culture of law. Subsequently, this
causes most students to enter the field of law with false realities of the profession (Abrams,
2015). Socialization with other practicing lawyers helps law students create their own
professional identity and acquire a level of professionalism expected in their field. The
organizational culture of law directly helps the law student understand the norms of the
profession and what areas of law they would like to specialize in. Studies have found that
learners do best when they are able to have a positive identification within their profession.
32

Furthermore, a professional identity helps law students acquire new professional competencies,
and further shape their individual personality as a lawyer (Lexis Nexis, 2015; Niedwiecki, 2015).
Effective transformation requires interaction with working professionals who specialize
in areas of law students are trying to occupy. Furthermore, these learning environments best
shape students when held within the organizational culture that the student aspires to join (Katz,
2013). Unlike other professions, law school education has historically ignored the importance of
socializing students into the practice (Katz, 2013). Studies have shown that this directly impacts
the student’s professional development and leaves them ill prepared for the career at hand.
Research has also proven that socialization within a specialized field of practice directly
contributes to individual identity development and a positive attitude towards the profession. In
addition, sufficient socialization into the practice of law provides a sense of direction for new
lawyers when determining their preferred area of practice (CLEA, 2014; Miller, 2011; Wegner,
2011). It equips new lawyers with on-the-job experience and makes them more attractive for
employment. Furthermore, research suggests law firms benefit from acquiring new lawyers who
have litigation and private practice exposure based on the expectation that they will need
minimal training (Barry, 2012; Managan, 2011). This study explored hiring managers’
perspectives on how socialization into private practice during law school promotes practice
preparedness amongst recent graduates.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework provides a guide for the concepts designed and utilized in the
study and is influenced by my professional and clinical experience in the chosen field of study
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The purpose of the study was to explore whether changes made to
law school curriculum after the inception of the American Bar Association’s Standard 303(b)
33

accreditation sufficiently prepare recent law school graduates for a career in private practice as a
litigator from the perspective of law firm hiring managers.. For the purpose of this study,
examination of this perspective required the defined focus provided by a conceptual framework.
A conceptual framework provides focus to a study by describing general ideas and beliefs about
the topic of the study (Maxwell, 2013), and the theoretical framework affects each of the aspects
contained within a study, including key terms, concepts, literature, knowns, and the unknowns
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In the case of this study, the conceptual framework, depicted in
Figure 1, centers on practice ready content in law school curriculum in relation to preparing law
school graduates for private practice. The conceptual framework assumes that lawyers are best
prepared for practice when provided substantial opportunities for practicing the practical
application of law. Law school institutions must provide sufficient opportunities of exposure to
the law in practice in order to adequately prepare law student for private practice.

34

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework – Law School Education

Figure 1 demonstrates the law school education that is expected to produce lawyers who
are employable by private practice law firm’s post-graduation. The funnel represents law school
institutions, which are designed to incorporate practice ready content, experiential learning, and
socialization opportunities into their curriculum. Practice ready content includes the expected
metacognitive, conceptual, and procedural knowledge of the practice of law. Experiential
learning provides students with firsthand, on-the-job experience in how to practice law.
Socialization with the legal community during law school, provides students with adequate
exposure to the culture of law prior to graduation.
Private Practice
Firms
Hiring Managers’ goal:
To hire practice ready
law school graduates

How
prepared
are they?
Law School
Graduates
Socialization
with legal
community
Experiential
learning
opportunitie s
Practice
ready
curriculum
Law School Education

35

The conceptual framework explores whether the law school graduates presented to
private practice firms are meeting the hiring managers’ goal of hiring practice ready lawyers who
require little to no training. Figure 1 demonstrates how both the new lawyers and private practice
firm benefit from and are impacted by law school curriculum. From the perspective or private
practice law firm hiring managers, new lawyers who are better equipped for private practice can
be more readily integrated into the firm. For the new lawyer, being better equipped for private
practice will increase their employability. This study examined the perception of hiring managers
as it relates to new lawyer’s employability based on law school curriculum. The research sought
to assess the benefits of experiential learning and challenges law firms face when hiring recent
graduates with insufficient experience
Summary
This chapter examined literature addressing the lack of practice ready content in law
school education. As the case method has remained the staple of law school education, legal
experts have continued to challenge legal education to improve its curriculum. The literature
review also examined low employment rates for new lawyers and linked the declining rates to
the unpreparedness of recent graduates. Given the scope of this study, the literature review was
focused within the context of law school curriculum. The literature demonstrated that law school
students require a level of socialization into the profession, and sufficient on-the-job training.
Finally, the conceptual framework was introduced. The conceptual framework for this
study is a modification of the Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Framework (2008). This study
specifically explores the knowledge and organizational influences impacting the readiness of
new lawyers from the perspective of hiring managers. Chapter Three outlines research questions;
36

methodological design of the study; data, collection methods; researcher positionality; validity
and reliability; survey design, data analysis, and ethics.

37

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of the study was to explore whether changes made to law school curriculum
after the inception of the American Bar Association’s Standard 303(b) accreditation sufficiently
prepare recent law school graduates for a career in private practice as a litigator from the
perspective of law firm hiring managers. Using a modified Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis
model, this mixed-method research approach utilized surveys and interview to better understand
the preparedness of recent graduates based on the experience of hiring managers, who are both
employers and former students themselves. Furthermore, findings from the surveys and
interviews explored the organizational benefits of recent graduates participating in experiential
learning opportunities during law school.
Research Questions
This study explored the following three research questions using a mixed-method approach:
1. What are the law firm hiring managers perceptions regarding how prepared recent law
school graduates are to practice law as a litigator based on the current law school
education?
2. What is the perception of law firm hiring managers regarding how effective experiential
learning opportunities are in preparing law school graduates to practice law as a litigator?
3. What organizational challenges do law firms face when hiring recent law school
graduates for hire as a litigator?
Table 3 outlines the data sources and methods used to answer each research question.

38

Table 3
Data Sources
Study questions Method 1: survey Method 2: interview
1. What perception do law firm hiring
managers have regarding how
prepared recent law school
graduates are to practice law as
a litigator based on the current
law school education?
X

2. What is the perception of law firm
hiring managers regarding how
effective experiential learning
opportunities are in preparing
law school graduates to practice
law as a litigator?
X X
3. What organizational challenges do
law firms face when hiring
recent law school graduates for
hire as a litigator?
X

The Researcher
I am the Practice Director at Robert Half International for their contracts legal practice
group in Dallas, TX. I have specialized in legal talent and acquisition for over 4 years, and
litigation support for over 6 years. I have assisted in talent acquisition for global, regional, and
local law firms, and have extensive experience in quantifying legal talent. My experience and
perceptions of practice preparedness amongst recent graduates can inadvertently convey biases
to participants and influence the study’s results. Additionally, my position as the leader for the
largest talent solutions company can influence a participant’s responses in the form of targeting
participants from her existing client base. An existing client base refers to the network of clients
39

a researcher currently engages with for business (Law Insider, 2021). To avoid targeting an
existing client base, I filtered the LinkedIn Sales Navigator search engine to assess existing client
law firms from my search. Furthermore, I avoided recruiting clients that I work with at Robert
Half, in order to eliminate the possibility of influencing participant responses.
Data Sources: Survey and Interview
This study used a mixed-method approach to gain information on how hiring managers
perceive the level of preparedness in recent law school graduates for a career as a litigator. Data
was collected using both a quantitative survey instrument and a qualitative interview instrument.
This method was found appropriate for several reasons: (a) the ability to collect and analyze
quantifiable data expeditiously; (b) surveys provide the least time-consuming method in
collecting data from legal professionals with limited time to meet and; (c) interviews provide
more detailed responses from the participants (Croasmun & Ostrom, 2011). This section and its
sub-sections discuss the study’s methodology by presenting the survey first and then the
interviews in the order in which data was collected. LinkedIn was used to acquire both survey
and interview participants. Prior to taking the survey, the participants were invited to volunteer to
be interviewed by the researcher. The survey requested that participants interested in being
interviewed leave their name, litigation area of practice, and contact information in the
designated area. The researcher also contacted litigators in her professional network to see if they
or their colleagues would like to be interviewed as a secondary approach to recruiting
participants. The researcher eventually selected five participants from the survey volunteers and
her professional network to interview for the qualitative part of this research. For the purpose of
this study, the researcher selected participants from different areas of litigation in order to
40

provide this study with a diverse sample and prevent biases based on the level of complexity
associated with the area of law.
Method 1: Survey
The survey items were divided into two categories that measure the following concepts
that correspond to the study’s conceptual framework and research questions: perception of law
school graduate preparedness and the perceived effectiveness of experiential learning. For the
purpose of ensuring accuracy in acquiring participants from a specified criterion, this study used
LinkedIn Sales Navigator to identify and recruit specific participants for the surveys. LinkedIn
Sales Navigator is a paid platform used to help sales professionals identify a specific audience
based on their needs. The platform allows users to filter their search by geographical location,
type of employment, industry, place of employment, educational history, and by requesting other
personalized details. Qualtrics Survey software was used to administer the surveys to the
participating hiring managers at U.S. based private practice law firms. The survey questions
consisted of closed-ended questions formatted in a Likert scale. Furthermore, the findings
assisted the researcher in identifying appropriate recommendations for law schools on how to
better prepare law school students for a career in litigation.
Participants
Participants were hiring managers from U.S.-based litigating law firms. For the purpose
of this study, hiring managers were defined as private practice litigating attorneys, assigned to
oversee or participate in the attorney hiring process at their firm. This study sought after 25-100
hiring managers to participate in the survey. During the recruitment process, hiring managers
were targeted based on the size of their law firm, their involvement in their firms hiring process,
41

first-hand experience in hiring newly barred law school graduates, and the tier of the law school
from which they graduated.
This study attempted to use a stratified sampling approach to recruit participants for this
study (Tipton, 2013). The stratified sampling method is built to develop a specific sample that
requires details regarding the target population (Tipton, 2013). This descriptive statistics
approach served as an attempt to gain participants who represent various litigating characteristics
of a private practice litigator (Kaliyadan & Kulkarni, 2019).

This recruiting criterion also
attempted to ensure the participants represented hiring managers from various sized law firms
and law school tiers. The first recruiting criteria sought out participants from American Law
(AM Law) 100 global firms, who earned their Juris Doctorate from law schools ranked as Tier 1
or Tier 2 at the time of their graduation. The second recruiting criteria sought out participants
from mid-sized law firms (with 35-80 attorneys), and an earned their Juris Doctorate from law
schools ranked as Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 at the time of their graduation. The third recruiting
criteria sought out participants from smaller law firms with 2-15 attorneys, and an earned their
Juris Doctorate from law schools ranked as Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, or Tier 4 at the time of their
graduation.
Instrumentation
The survey instrument consisted of closed-ended questions that assessed the perception
hiring managers have of newly barred law school graduates, the current organizational
challenges they face when hiring newly barred graduates, and recommendations to law schools
regarding preparing law school students to be practice ready. This instrument used a structured
design to explore the practice preparedness of newly barred graduates (Nikolaidi &
Stockhammer, 2017). The survey instrument was originally created by the researcher based upon
42

the intent of the study and review of extant literature. The instrument was administered through
Qualtrics Survey Software. The survey instrument was disseminated to participants via LinkedIn
messaging or by the participants preferred email. Additionally, the survey instrument did not
collect each participant’s personal information. Since the survey was originally created for the
purpose of this study by the researcher, the survey instrument was pilot tested and administered
to two doctoral candidates for feedback on content and grammar before administering the survey
to the study population. The dissertation committee also reviewed the survey prior to
administration.
The instrument used two different 5-point Likert scales to provide hiring managers with
sufficient options when assessing their perception of preparedness amongst recent graduates. The
Likert scale was selected to produce answers that are consistent and demonstrate concrete
answers. For the purpose of this study, the conceptual knowledge option in the Likert scale was
equivalent to foundational knowledge. Lastly, the survey included two multiple choice questions
to identify the participants’ educational backgrounds and firm size. Using a survey provided each
participant with the exact same questions in the exact same order. The survey instrument is
located in Appendix C.
Data Collection Procedures
Targeted participants were identified using LinkedIn Sales Navigator software platform.
This in-depth search engine allowed the researcher to contact participants across the U.S. who
met the recruiting criteria. As detailed in the recruiting criteria articulated, these individuals
represented various law firm sizes and educational experiences. LinkedIn Sales Navigator
allowed the researcher to contact anyone registered to their platform; the platform does not
require its users to have an existing relationship or connection with registered users. The
43

researchers invited the participants via pre-invitation messages using LinkedIn’s messaging
feature (messaging feature) and via their private email addresses listed on LinkedIn. Regardless
of how initial contact was made with the participants, the surveys were administered through
Qualtrics. To avoid any personal biases, the participants were not given the option to provide
their personal information in the survey. All participants were issued the same survey so the
results could be accurately compared.
Participants were able to complete the survey from any location using an electronic
device with internet connection. In order to prevent biased responses, the participants were not
privy to my opinion on the subject matter or the survey questions prior to taking the survey. In
addition, participants were not privy to the responses of other participants who took the survey.
All participants received general information about the study prior to the survey being
administered. The participants also received the University of Southern California’s Information
Sheet for Exempt Research, which provides details on the research and participants’ rights. The
invitation to participate in the survey is located in Appendix A, and the information sheet is
located in Appendix B.
Data Analysis
The survey data was collected via Qualtrics Survey Software, and Qualtrics supports
analysis of results from the completed participants’ surveys. The data was examined for errors
and unusable data prior to conducting a descriptive analysis. The researcher conducted a
descriptive statistical analysis to determine the mean and frequencies of responses to each of the
Likert-style questions. All responses were analyzed using Qualtrics Survey Software. The data
was calculated to determine the percentages the participants responses to generate findings, and
44

common themes. Lastly, tables depicting the results of the statistical data analysis are presented
in Chapter Four.

Validity and Reliability
Validity in quantitative research is the extent to which a concept is measured (Heale &
Twycross, 2015). The researcher tested the instrument for face validity. Face validity questions
whether an instrument measures the intended concept (Heale & Twycross, 2015). The researcher
selected face validity based on the limited timeframe allotted to test and implement the survey
instrument. The researcher conducted a pilot test of the survey instrument by administering the
survey to two doctoral candidates who did not meet the criteria for participation in the study. The
purpose of the pilot test was to identify issues with the survey instrument and determine any
revisions that needed to be made to ensure reliability (Heale & Twycross, 2015). Construct
validity refers to when researchers can determine inferences about test scores related to the
concept of study (Heale & Twycross, 2015), which was not necessary for this study. The
participants selected for this study were hiring managers within U.S.-based law firms. Based on
the recruiting criteria established for intended inclusion in the study and size of the sample (25-
200 participants), it was expected that the results of the study would be generalized to all law
schools and all U.S.-based law firms
Method 2: Interviews
The interview questions assessed law firm challenges in onboarding newly barred
graduates. The interviews for this study were administered via Zoom Video Conference to
prevent the spread of COVID-19. The estimated time for each interview was 25-35 minutes. The
interview questions consisted of open-ended questions followed by probing questions to specify
45

details of the participants’ responses. Furthermore, the questions helped the researcher identify
organizational challenges law firms face when hiring recent graduates.

Participants
The qualitative component of this study sought out five to seven participants using the
same criteria and stratification approach used for the surveys. For the purpose of this study, this
research selected participants who practiced in different areas of litigation in order to provide this
study with a diverse sample and prevent biases based on the level of complexity associated with
differing areas of law. The interview participants were selected based on their request to
volunteer and identified through the researchers’ network of litigators.
Instrumentation
The interview instrument consisted of open-ended questions that explored the practice
preparedness of newly barred graduates. More specifically, the instrument used a semi-structured
design to assess the organizational challenges law firms face when hiring recent law school
graduates as a litigator (Nikolaidi & Stockhammer, 2017). Each question was followed by
probing questions to gain further understanding of the participants responses. The interview
instrument was originally created by the researcher and based upon the intent of the study and
review of extant literature.
Data Collection Procedures
This research used the surveys and the researcher’s professional network to recruit
interview participants. The survey participants were invited to volunteer to be interviewed by the
researcher by leaving their information in the designated area located in the beginning of the
survey. The designated volunteer section of the survey requested participants wanting to be
46

interviewed leave their name, litigation area of practice, and contact information. The researcher
also utilized her professional network to recruit interview participants by contacting litigators in
her professional network to see if they or their colleagues would like to be interviewed. The
researcher eventually selected five participants from the survey volunteers and her professional
network to be interviewed. The researcher selected participants from different areas of litigation
in attempt to attain a diverse sample that examines litigation preparedness at various levels of
complexity associated with the area of law. A set of preplanned questioned was used to guide the
semi structured interview. Data was collected via note taking and Zoom Video Conferencing
transcription feature. To prevent biased responses, the participants were not privy to my opinion
on the subject matter or the interview questions prior to taking the survey. In addition,
participants were not privy to the responses of other interviewed participants. All participants
received general information about the study prior to the interviews being administered. The
participants also received the University of Southern California’s Information Sheet for Exempt
Research, which provided details on the research and participants’ rights.
Data Analysis
Interview data was analyzed by reading the interview transcripts to find similarities or
differences in the participant responses. The transcripts were transcribed by Zoom Video
Conferencing platform and formatted by the researcher to be analyzed. Subsequently, the
researcher found themes in the participants responses and categorized them according to their
likeness. The interviews with the research participants were color coded in Microsoft Word and
Notepad and assessed general themes and similarities between the participants’ responses. The
interview codes were determined by trends from the researchers interview notes. Furthermore,
the participant transcripts were reviewed, manually color coded, and compared with each other
47

to assess common trends and key themes that may have emerged. The themes were then selected
based on similar feedback from 60% or more of the interview participants. An overall summary
of the study findings is provided at the end of this chapter and guided the discussion and
recommendations in Chapter 5. Table 4 below illustrates the color-coding system used in the
interviews.

Table 4
Interview Color Coding Used for Analysis
Code Color Code description
Experiential learning/
Clerkships/Internships/Externships
Red On the job training for law
school students
Important/ Importance Blue Used to address relevancy
Challenge/Challenges Green Used to address adversity
Training/Train/Trained Orange Practical experience used
to teach job functions
Prepared/Prepare Purple To make ready for
litigation practice
Organization/Organizational Pink Law firm or business
where law is practiced

48

Credibility and Trustworthiness
In order to maximize the credibility and trustworthiness of the interviews, each
participant was asked to give their own personal account regarding their perception of recent
graduates and their experience as a recent graduate. To ensure credibility, this research selected
participants who practiced in different areas of litigation. This ensured the research produced a
diverse source of data that assessed recent graduates’ preparedness to practice various areas of
litigation with different levels of complexity. By utilizing triangulation in collecting data from
individuals with differing experiences and organizational backgrounds, the credibility and
trustworthiness of the study was enhanced. The interviews gathered an analysis of the various
perspective of the participants and used the Clark and Estes KMO framework to understand the
organizational challenges law firms face when hiring recent graduates as litigators. As an attempt
to gain valid and unbiased responses, the participants were not privy to information regarding the
other participants of this study or their responses.
Ethics and Role of Researcher
The participants were informed that the findings from the survey were used to inquire
about the research question. Each participant was advised that their participation was voluntary
and refusal to participate or answer all survey questions would not result in consequences to
them. The recruited participants’ identities were not disclosed to anyone to ensure the
confidentiality of their identity (Creswell & Creswell 2018). Specifically, I included extra-
precautionary measures to protect each participant’s confidentiality by not disclosing the identity
of the recruited participants to one another as recommended by Couper et al. (2008).
Additionally, I did not collect identifying information in the surveys, so recruited participants
who completed the survey remained anonymous to me.
49

For the purpose of his study, none of the participants were within my social network. The
participants were not privy to my opinion on the study to prevent the participants from adjusting
their answers to fit the researcher’s positionality. This eliminated the possibility of research bias
by limiting the participants’ familiarity with the researcher (Couper et al., 2008). It was
important to ensure participant responses were authentic and based on their personal experience.

50

Chapter 4: Results and Findings
Chapter 4 presents this study’s findings. The purpose of the study was to explore whether
changes made to law school curriculum after the inception of the American Bar Association’s
Standard 303(b) accreditation sufficiently prepare recent law school graduates for a career in
private practice as a litigator from the perspective of law firm hiring managers. The findings for
this study are organized by research question and further summarized by themes within the
research questions. The following three research questions were developed to guide the study:
1. What are the law firm hiring managers perceptions regarding how prepared recent law
school graduates are to practice law as a litigator based on the current law school
education?
2. What is the perception of law firm hiring managers regarding how effective experiential
learning opportunities are in preparing law school graduates to practice law as a litigator?
3. What organizational challenges do law firms face when hiring recent law school
graduates for hire as a litigator?
Quantitative and qualitative data were collected for this study. Surveys and interviews
were used to understand the dynamics associated with the problem of practice. First, the surveys
were administered via Qualtrics survey system; the survey instrument consisted of items that
used a five-point Likert scale to collect data from the participants. The data analysis process
calculated the percentage of total responses of each point on the Likert scale within each
question. The percentages represented the perception of each participant in regard to recent
graduates’ preparedness. A comparative analysis of both survey sections compared the level of
preparedness in recent graduates who had experiential learning opportunities during law school
to those who did not have an experiential learning opportunity during law school. The following
51

table describes the Likert scale uses in the survey portion of this study. For the purpose of this
study, the term conceptual was used to illustrate a foundational level of ability in recent law
school graduates.

Table 5
Likert Scale Options

Likert scale value Option description
5 Experts
4 Self sufficient
3 Conceptual/Needs guidance
2 Insufficient
1 None

52

Survey Participants
For the purpose of this study, all hiring managers that participated in the survey were
required to be practicing litigators. This allowed the survey participants to answer the survey
questions from both the hiring manager’s perspective and the perspective of a former recent
graduate. Among the 25 participants who attempted the survey, 15 of the participants completed
the entire survey. Of the completed responses, 26.6% of the respondents attended Tier 1 law
schools, 33.3% attended Tier 2 law schools, 26.6% attended Tier 3 law schools, and 13.3% listed
their law school tier as unknown. Furthermore, 18.7% of respondents worked for a global law
firm with 350 employees internationally, 12.5% worked for large law firms with 350 and up
employees based solely in the United States, 31.2% worked for a mid-size firm with 16-350
employees, and 37.5% worked for a small law firm with 15 or less employees.

Table 6

Survey Participants Law Firm Size

Law firm Survey participants
Global law firm
(350+ employees internationally)
18.8%
Large law firm
(350+ employees in the US)
12.5%
Mid-size law firm
(16-350 employees)
31.3%
Small law firm 37.5%
(1-15 employees)

53

Interview Participants
The research used the surveys and my professional network to recruit interview
participants. The survey allowed each participant to volunteer to be interviewed by leaving their
information in a designated area located in the beginning of the survey. My secondary approach
to attain interview participants was by requesting interviews from my professional network and
their colleagues. I eventually selected five participants from the survey volunteers and my
professional network to be interviewed. Only one of the interview participants volunteered for
the interview via the survey, so I used the secondary approach (network) identified in Chapter
Three to separately recruit additional interview participants. In using the secondary recruiting
approach, I still attempted to recruit individuals from differing firm sizes. In addition, I identified
individuals who practiced in differing areas of litigation to create diversity in my participant
group since I ultimately needed to rely on my personal network to obtain the desired number of
interview participants. Each participant was given a participant number that was used to report
their interview data. The following table represents the interview participants, the area of
litigation they practice, and their participant number.

Table 7
Interview Participants
Participant # Area of litigation
1 Bankruptcy and intellectual property
2 Family law
3 Commercial and business
4 Criminal
5 Employment and personal injury

54

Research Question 1: What Perception Do Law Firm Hiring Managers Have Regarding
How Prepared Recent Law School Graduates Are to Practice Law as a Litigator Based on
the Current Law School Education?
The first research question assessed how prepared recent law school graduates are to
practice law as a litigator upon graduating from law school from the perspective as reported by
the hiring managers. Research question one was informed by both survey results and interview
findings. The focus of this research question was whether hiring managers perceive new law
school graduates possess the procedural knowledge and skill to practice law to a degree that
hiring managers would deem as at least self-sufficient. Therefore, themes were determined based
upon a simple majority (51%) of survey and interview respondents identifying particular
competencies as either an asset or a gap for recent law school graduates for the majority of the
questions that pertained to this research question.
This research question reports how hiring managers believe recent graduates have
insufficient knowledge to practice as a litigator based on insufficiency in procedural knowledge
and lack of practical experience during law school experience. Furthermore, this study found that
law firm hiring managers believe law school education only prepares recent law school graduates
for litigation at a level of conceptual understanding or lower. This study uncovered an apparent
overall gap in how equipped recent law school graduates are in understanding and practicing as a
litigator. Furthermore, the results and findings demonstrated that law school education alone only
prepares recent law school graduates to a conceptual level of knowledge at best. Although law
school education is primarily built to teach students how to think like a lawyer (Sullivan, 2018),
it appears to fail at preparing students to a level of self-sufficiency and expertise to practice law,
according to the respondents in this study.
55

The survey participants (law firm hiring managers) in this research did not find law
school education to be sufficient at preparing recent graduates with procedural knowledge at a
level of self-sufficiency that allows them to be ready to practice as a litigator after graduation
without additional guidance. Additionally, less than 50% of participants perceive recent law
school graduates have a conceptual level of knowledge on the theory of law. They also reported
that recent law school graduates are unable to practice steps of litigation in regard to filing cases,
managing a motion practice, and court required actions. Furthermore, law school education does
not appear to sufficiently teach recent graduates how to assess relevant case facts, how to
understand inconsistencies in cases and how to conduct sufficient legal research. Lastly, the
results found that hiring managers reported recent law school graduates are insufficient in
knowing courtroom procedures and litigation tasks that build cases for trial.
Approximately 80% of interview participants reported that law school graduates are
inexperienced in knowing how to practice law as a litigator immediately after law school. This
finding became a unanimous consensus amongst the interviewed hiring managers and was
expressed by four out of five participants who confirmed insufficiency in recent graduates’ level
of procedural knowledge for a career as a litigator. According to the participants, such
insufficiency was exhibited by recent graduates lacking specific skill sets, ranging from litigation
skills to interpersonal skills. Each participant provided specific examples of overall knowledge
deficiencies that hinder recent graduate from being prepared to practice as a litigator right out of
our school regardless of experiential learning.
Survey Results
The results from the survey reported that 86.7% of the survey respondents believe law
school provides a foundational level of understanding on how to think like a lawyer. The data
56

indicated recent law school graduates still require guidance from a seasoned attorney. Only
13.3% of the participants reported that law school teaches its students how to think like a lawyer
to a point of self-sufficiency, which is defined as a level at which a recent graduate does not
require additional guidance.
Survey analysis found that 53.3% of the survey respondents reported that law school is
insufficient in equipping its students to understand the facts and emotions behind disputes. This
result suggests that more recent graduates than not are unable to understand both the factual and
psychologically aspects of a case which is an important part of being a litigator. Only 20.0% of
respondents found that law school education helps students understand the facts and emotions
behind disputes to where they are self-sufficient enough to analyze such facts on their own.
Surprisingly, only 13.3% of hiring managers surveyed reported that recent graduates are
insufficiently equipped to analyze case facts and emotions behind disputes, at a level of
conceptual knowledge or below. The table below demonstrates the survey results from this
theme.

57

Table 8
Survey Results: Law School Alone (n = 15)
Survey
question
Expert
(5)
Self-
sufficient
(4)
Conceptual
(3)
Insufficient
(2)
None
(1)
M SD
The ability
to think
like a
lawyer
- 13.3% 40.0% 26.7% 20.0% 3.53 0.96
The ability
to
understand
facts and
emotions
behind
disputes

- 20% 13.3% 53.3% 13.3% 3.60 0.83

The survey results further demonstrated that hiring managers find recent graduates do not
have self-sufficient knowledge in how to perform steps of litigation based on law school
education alone. Only 20.0% reported that law school education alone teaches recent graduate
how to uncover and collect relevant case facts at a level of self -sufficiency. Approximately
73.4% of hiring managers reported recent law school graduates are only able to uncover and
collect relevant case facts at a conceptual level or lower based on law school education alone.
More specifically, 46.7% of hiring managers reported that recent law school graduates have a
conceptual knowledge of how to uncover and collect relevant case facts. Furthermore, 26.7% of
respondents reported that law school is insufficient in teaching students how to uncover and
collect relevant case facts.
Hiring managers reported that recent law school graduates have insufficient knowledge in
identifying inconsistencies in cases and how to conduct sufficient legal research. The survey
58

results found that 40.0% of hiring managers affirmed that law school education alone teaches its
students to understand inconsistencies and changing positions as a case proceeds at a level that
requires additional guidance, while another 53.3% respondents stated that law school education
alone is insufficient in this area. Only 6.7% of the respondents affirmed that law school creates
experts in the areas of explaining inconsistencies and changing positions as cases proceed. The
hiring managers were asked whether recent law school graduates can defend their client when
opposing counsel seeks to destroy their credibility. Only 6.7% of hiring managers reported that
recent law school graduates are able to do so at a level of self-sufficiency. Additionally, 60.0%
of respondents reported that law school is insufficient in preparing graduate, while another
33.3% affirmed that law school provides conceptual knowledge regarding their preparedness in
this area.
The survey results demonstrated that hiring managers find recent law school graduates
insufficiently prepared in the areas of courtroom procedures and steps of litigation that build
cases for trial. Only 6.7% of hiring managers reported recent law school graduates’ ability to file
cases with the courts on their own without assistance at a level of self -sufficiency, and 33.3% of
the hiring managers reported that law school graduates can file cases with the courts on their own
with some guidance from a superior. Among the participants, 46.7% reported that law school
education alone is insufficient in preparing recent graduates in this area. An overwhelming 60%
of the respondents identified that law school is insufficient in preparing recent graduates to
perform steps of litigation on their own, 20.0% ruled that they can do so at a conceptual level,
and 13.3% ruled that they are able to perform at a level of self-sufficiency. In addition, 66.6% of
hiring managers confirmed that recent law school graduates only have, at best, a conceptual
59

understanding of courtroom etiquette, and 26.7% found recent graduates to be insufficient in this
area.
The results found that 33.3% of hiring managers affirmed that recent graduates only have
conceptual knowledge on how to initiate a case, while 40.0% affirmed that recent graduates are
insufficient in this area. Surprisingly, 80.0% of hiring manager reported that law school
education teaches students how to complete legal research to a level of conceptual knowledge
and higher. However, 33.3% of the respondents affirmed that recent law school graduates have
insufficient knowledge regarding knowing the statues of limitations for a case, with 33.3% of
hiring manager reporting that recent law school graduates can perform such task at a self-
sufficient or expert level. When the survey participants were asked how well recent graduates
can respond to written discovery, 40% of respondents ruled that law school education alone
provides insufficient knowledge. Only 6.7% stated that recent law school graduates can perform
written discovery to a level of self-sufficiency. The follow table demonstrates the survey results.

60

Table 9
Survey Results: Performing Steps of Litigation (n = 15)
Survey
question
Expert
(5)
Self-
sufficient
(4)
Conceptual
(3)
Insufficient
(2)
None
(1)
M SD
The ability to
uncover
relevant
case facts
- 20.0% 46.7% 26.7% 6.7% 2.80 0.83
The ability to
understand
inconsistencies
and
changing
positions

6.7% - 40.0% 53.3% - 2.60 0.80
The ability to
defend their
client when
opposing
counsel
seeks to
destroy their
credibility
- 6.7% 33.3% 60.0% - 2.47 0.62

The ability to
file cases
with the
courts on
their own

-

6.7%

33.3%

46.7%

13.3%

2.33

0.79
The ability to
perform
steps of
litigation on
their own
-

13.3% 20.0% 60.0% 6.7% 2.40 0.80

The ability to
understand
courtroom
etiquette

- 26.7% 33.3% 33.3% 6.7% 2.80 0.91
61

Survey
question
Expert
(5)
Self-
sufficient
(4)
Conceptual
(3)
Insufficient
(2)
None
(1)
M SD
The ability to
initiate a
case

- 13.3% 33.3% 40.0% 13.3% 2.47 0.88
The ability to
complete
legal
research

- 40.0% 40.0% 20% - 3.20 0.75
The ability to
understand
statues of
limitations
for a case

13.3% 20.0% 26.7% 33.3% 6.7% 3.00 1.15
The ability to
respond to
written
discovery
- 6.7% 40.0% 40.0% 13.3% 2.40 0.80

Interview Findings
Findings from the participant responses demonstrated that recent law school graduates
are inexperienced to practice law as a litigator due to lack of procedural knowledge and
experience needed to be successful. This is a challenge that law firms face, according to the four
out of five interviewed hiring managers, who expressed this concern when considering recent
law school graduates as viable candidates for hire when considering applicants for open
positions. Participant 4 specifically highlighted a lack of interpersonal skills in recent graduates
that generally prohibit them from understanding clients and how to interact with clients during
the litigation process. According to Participant 4, this impacts the ability of recent graduates to
take on cases on their own. In addition, Participant 4 expressed the need for law school education
62

to include coursework on human behavior and human psychology to adequately prepare recent
graduates for a career as a litigator:
They’re not trained on the necessary interpersonal skills, people, skills, client
management skills, research skills office management skills which I think is the biggest
problem.
Two more participants expressed how inexperienced recent law school graduates are for
the realities of practicing law based on level of understanding. Participant 1 expressed how
recent graduates do not always understand various subjects as it pertains to practicing litigation
as litigation itself has a variety and moving pieces that have to be met in order for success. The
complexity in litigation, according to Participant 1, is not enough to be absorbed through law
school education without real-time practice experience as common sense is not substantial
enough to win a case due to the unpredictability of opposing counsel:
Common sense is not the only thing that plays into how cases are resolved. And it's
important to be looking at a problem from a commonsense standpoint, but when you're
practicing law, you have to understand that, from a practical standpoint, a party can make
things very difficult for you, even if they are wrong.
Similarly, Participant 3 highlighted how law school preparation to practice law is not on the
same level required for the daily practice of law:
I did moot court in in law school and did well with that, but even that's on a different
level than the daily practice of law that's appellate practice.
Two of the interview participants affirmed that recent law school graduates appear to
possess theoretical knowledge but are inexperienced in the practical knowledge needed for the
application of practice. Participant 2 and 4 specifically expressed an overall lack of preparedness
63

among recent law school graduates for the practice of law, with Participant 4 highlighting a lack
in understanding the practical application:
Some of them do not have the experience to go in and do the work. They have the theory
but the application of it is very difficult.
However, Participant 3 reported that preparedness also depends on the law school the recent law
school graduates attended, and they further expressed how some of the lower ranked law schools
prepare better litigators than the higher ranked institutions:
Litigation has so many moving parts that are not all going in the same direction, and
you’ve got your client you’ve got your adversary got your witnesses you’ve got the judge
you may have a jury involved if it gets to that point but there’s all kinds of forces playing
a role in litigation.
Participant 4 highlighted how recent graduates are not prepared to practice litigation right out of
law school, stating how preparation in law school education is not enough call recent graduates
to be ready. The participant further explained that how inexperienced recent graduates are to do
the work that comes with litigation by expressing how difficult the practical application of
litigation is. Similarly, Participant 5 emphasized, “They need a lot of supervision.”
Summary
Findings and results highlighted the lack of hands-on experience and understanding
recent graduates must have to practice, which presents itself as a problem for law firms. Recent
graduates are seen as having insufficient knowledge to practice litigation by hiring managers.
According to 80% of the law firm hiring managers interviewed, law school does not provide
sufficient knowledge or applicable experience that prepares recent graduates to practice as a
litigator. The participants highlighted a range of deficiencies in recent law school graduates
64

including a lack of interpersonal skills, lack of real time experience, and a lack of overall
knowledge required to be successful.
According to the survey data collected from the respondents, law school education is
insufficient in teaching the practical application of litigation to a level of self-sufficiency. Much
like the Carnegie Report findings (Sullivan, 2018), the survey results of this study highlighted a
level of insufficiency in the steps of litigation that is important for those who choose to practice
as a litigator right after law school. Furthermore, the results demonstrated hiring managers
believe recent law school graduates perform at a level of insufficiency when assessing relevant
case facts, how to understand inconsistencies in cases, and how to conduct sufficient legal
research. Hiring manager also reported recent law school graduates are insufficient in knowing
courtroom procedures and litigation tasks that build cases for trial except for when it came to
performing legal research. The results found that 80% of hiring manager believe law school
education provides recent law school graduates with conceptual knowledge or higher on how to
perform legal research which demonstrates a gap in the results that should be further explored.
Additionally, the results found that over 60% of the results demonstrate recent law school
graduates understand statues of limitations for a case at a conceptual level of knowledge or
higher which also gives cause for further exploration.
The findings also demonstrated that 53.3% of hiring manager believe law school is
insufficient in equipping its students to understand the facts and emotions behind disputes, and
66.7% of hiring manager believe recent law school graduates have conceptual level of
knowledge or lower regarding the ability to think like a lawyer. Although the survey results
suggest recent graduates are not equipped at a level of self-sufficiency to take on litigation cases
without additional support or supervision, the results demonstrated areas of weakness regarding
65

hiring managers perception of recent graduates’ ability to think like a lawyer. Approximately
66.6% of the respondents found that recent graduates have only conceptual knowledge or lower
on how to think like a lawyer. This demonstrates that more than half of hiring managers believe
law school education has value in equipping recent law school graduates with a degree of
knowledge. These results may warrant a deeper exploration into whether law school education is
completely insufficient in preparing recent law school graduates for a career in litigation. These
results will be discussed further in Chapter 5.
Research Question 2: What is the Perception of Law Firm Hiring Managers Regarding
How Effective Experiential Learning Opportunities are in Preparing Law School
Graduates to Practice Law as a Litigator?
The second research question assessed the perception hiring managers have regarding the
effectiveness of experiential learning opportunities in addition to law school education for better
preparedness to practice as a litigator upon graduation. This section used both survey and
interview data. The results from the surveys were determined by comparing the findings from
first section of the survey to the finding in second section of the survey. Unlike the first section
of the survey, which highlighted the perception of hiring managers as it pertains to preparedness
based on law school education alone, the second section of the survey highlighted how prepared
recent law school graduates are to practice as a litigator based on law school education combined
with experiential learning opportunities. The purpose of this section was to identify knowledge
gaps regarding preparedness when comparing experiential learning and law school to just law
school education alone amongst recent law school graduates. That findings from the interviews
were also used to assess the perception hiring managers have of the relevancy of experiential
learning when preparing recent graduates for career as a litigator. The participant responses were
66

compared with one another to identify a common theme and trend in preparedness. Since the
focus of this research question was how effective law firm hiring managers perceive experiential
learning opportunities are in preparing law school graduates to a level of self-sufficiency in
practicing law as a litigator, the themes were determined based upon a simple majority (51%) of
survey and interview respondents identifying competencies as either an asset or a gap in the area
of self-sufficiency.
The analysis of data in answering this research question and was combined and compared
to produce results and findings: Experiential learning was found to improve recent law school
graduates’ foundational understanding of litigation but does not improve their level of self -
sufficiency in the ability to practice. The results highlighted how hiring managers believe
experiential learning combined with law school education improves recent law school graduates
understanding of litigation concepts, but it does not improve their level of self-sufficiency in
practice. The results and findings under this theme were quantified by examining survey and
interview results.
Experiential learning in law school is defined as externships, internships, or clerkships
opportunities that provide law school students with that first-hand experience in practicing law
(Dinovitzer et al., 2014; Jones, 2015; Stark & Hunt, 2015; Sullivan et al, 2007; Sullivan, 2018).
Both survey and interview participants reported experiential learning was not sufficient in
preparing recent law school graduates to practice as a litigator by themselves, but they reported
experiential learning combined with law school curriculum better equips law school students for
a career as a litigator by increasing their knowledge of the practice of law.

67

Survey Results

The overall survey results demonstrated an increase in conceptual understanding among
recent law school graduates as it pertains to preparedness for practice as a litigator. However, the
results did not increase in the areas of self-sufficiency when including experiential learning into
law school education. Rather, a decline in self-sufficiency was reported by survey respondents
when considering experiential learning in addition to law school education. According to 73.3%
of hiring managers, law school education coupled with experiential learning opportunities
provides an even greater conceptual knowledge on how to think like a lawyer. However, only
6.7% of hiring managers reported an increase in self-sufficiency in recent law school graduates
on how to think like a lawyer after experiential learning opportunities, compared to 13.3% of
hiring managers who reported self-sufficiency with just law school education alone. In addition,
20% of the respondents confirmed that law school education combined with experiential learning
provides self-sufficiency in understanding facts and emotions behind a case, but a change was
not noted when comparing results from law school education alone. However, 53.3% of hiring
managers reported higher levels of perceived conceptual knowledge among recent law school
graduates when combining experiential learning with law school education.
The survey results further assessed how prepared hiring managers believe recent law
school graduates are for specific procedural litigation functions. According to hiring managers,
73.3% confirmed that law school education plus experiential learning opportunities provides
recent law school graduates with conceptual knowledge on how to explain inconsistencies and
changing positions as a case proceeds. This demonstrates at 33.3% difference compared to the
40.0% of respondents who held the same position regarding law school education alone.
However, only 6.7% of hiring managers reported self-sufficiency in recent law school graduates
68

on how to explain inconsistencies and changing positions as case proceeds after experiential
learning opportunities, compared to 6.7% of hiring managers who reported expertise in recent
law school graduates who had law school education alone.
The survey results found 53.3% of hiring managers reported that law school students who
have experiential learning opportunities are at a level of conceptual knowledge when defending
their client against opposing counsel who seeks to destroy their client’s credibility and position.
This demonstrated a 20% increase from recent graduates who experienced law school education
alone. Furthermore, the results did not yield an increase as it pertains to self-sufficient level of
knowledge in recent graduates who had experiential learning opportunities from those who did
not. However, 6.7% of hiring managers found that recent graduates are indeed self-sufficient in
knowing what counts to benefit their case with just law school education alone. None of the
hiring managers reported a level of self-sufficiency in recent law school graduates as it pertains
to knowing what counts to benefit their case after law school education combined with
experiential learning. Furthermore, hiring managers reported a greater increase in conceptual
knowledge among recent law school graduates who had experiential learning opportunities with
a 26.3% increase compared to law school education alone. The results also indicated that 6.6%
more hiring managers believe law school education combined with experiential learning prepares
recent law school graduates to a level of conceptual knowledge regarding knowing how to
perform legal research. However, hiring managers reported that law school education alone
prepares recent law school graduates to a level of self-sufficiency in performing legal research at
6.7% higher rate than recent law school graduates who experienced law school education
combined with experiential learning opportunities.
69

Approximately 73.3% of the respondents confirmed that recent graduates can perform
steps of litigation at a conceptual level of knowledge with law school education combined with
experiential learning opportunities. This demonstrates a 50% increase compared to recent law
school graduates who only experience law school education alone. However, the hiring managers
reported law school education alone produces recent law school graduates that have self-
sufficient knowledge on how to perform steps of litigation on their own. The results also found
that 33.3% of hiring manager affirmed that law school education alone prepares recent law
school graduates to know the statute of limitations for a case at a self-sufficient level or higher.
However, law school education combined with experiential learning was found to create higher
levels of conceptual knowledge in recent graduates’ ability to know the statute of limitations for
a case. Although hiring managers found law school education combined with experiential
learning demonstrated a 33.3% increase in recent law school graduates’ ability to know court and
federal cases at a conceptual level of knowledge, 6.7% of hiring managers reported that law
school education alone prepares recent law school graduates to know court procedures for
federal cases at a level of expertise. Additionally, 6.7% of hiring managers reported the same
level of expertise in recent law school graduates in knowing how to respond to recent graduates
based on law school education alone. The following table highlights the survey results of hiring
managers and compares the responses for law school education alone to law school education
combined with experiential learning opportunities. The results in the table highlight scale option
three to five only but provide the mean and standard deviation for scale option one to five.
70

Table 10
Survey Results: Law School Education Alone vs. Law School Education Combined with Experiential Learning - Conceptual Level of
Knowledge and Higher Only (Scale Items 3 to 5)
Law school education alone
(n = 15)
Law school education
and experiential
learning
(n = 15)

Survey
question
Expert
(5)
Self-
sufficiency
(4)
Conceptual
(3)
M SD Expert
(5)
Self-
sufficiency
(4)
Conceptual
(3)
M SD
The ability
to think
like a
lawyer
13.3% 40.0% 3.53 0.96 - 6.7% 73.3% 2.80 0.54
The ability
to
understa
nd facts
and
emotions
behind a
disputes

- 20.0% 13.3% 3.60 0.95 - 20.0% 53.3% 2.93 0.68
The ability
to
explain
inconsist
encies
and
changing
positions
6.7% - 40.0% 2.60 0.80 - 6.7% 73.3% 2.87 0.50
71

Law school education alone
(n = 15)
Law school education
and experiential
learning
(n = 15)

Survey
question
Expert
(5)
Self-
sufficiency
(4)
Conceptual
(3)
M SD Expert
(5)
Self-
sufficiency
(4)
Conceptual
(3)
M SD
as case
proceeds
The ability
to defend
clients
against
counsel
who
seeks to
destroy
their
client’s
credibilit
y
- 6.7% 33.3% 2.47 0.62 - 6.7% 53.3% 2.67 0.60
The ability
to know
what
“counts”
to
benefit
their
case
- 6.7% 46.7% 2.60 0.61 - - 73.3% 2.73 0.44
The ability
to
perform
steps of
litigation

-

13.3%

20.0%

2.40

0.80

-

-

73.3%

2.73

0.44
72

Law school education alone
(n = 15)
Law school education
and experiential
learning
(n = 15)

Survey
question
Expert
(5)
Self-
sufficiency
(4)
Conceptual
(3)
M SD Expert
(5)
Self-
sufficiency
(4)
Conceptual
(3)
M SD
on their
own

The ability
to
complete
legal
research

-

40.0%

40.0%

3.20

0.75

-

33.3%

46.6%

3.13

0.72
The ability
to know
how to
initiate a
case

-

13.3%

33.3%

2.47

0.88

-

-

80%

2.73

0.57

The ability
to know
statute of
limitatio
ns for a
case

13.3%

20.0%

26.7%

3.00

1.15

-

13.3%

52.9%

2.87

0.62

The ability
to know
court
procedur
es for
state
cases

-

-

73.3%

2.60

0.88

-

-

73.3%

2.67

0.60
73

Law school education alone
(n = 15)
Law school education
and experiential
learning
(n = 15)

Survey
question
Expert
(5)
Self-
sufficiency
(4)
Conceptual
(3)
M SD Expert
(5)
Self-
sufficiency
(4)
Conceptual
(3)
M SD
The ability
to know
court
procedur
es for
federal
cases

-

6.7%

46.7%

2.53

0.72

-

-

80%

2.73

0.57

The ability
to know
how to
respond
to
written
discover
y

-

6.7%

40%

2.40

0.80

-

-

66.6%

2.60

0.61
74

Interview Findings

The overall findings from the interviews expressed the importance of experiential
learning being a part of law school education as an aid in helping recent law school graduates
better understand the practice of litigation. All five of the participants were in favor of
clerkships, externship, and internships as being a viable part of teaching the litigation process
during law school. Each participant highlighted various reasons as to how experiential learning
prepared them and the recent graduates they have worked with in their careers as litigators.
A common assessment among the participants was experiential learning opportunities provide
procedural knowledge in the application of practicing law. Participant 4 expressed that
experiential learning is necessary in preparing recent law school graduates for a career as a
litigator based on its ability to teach the foundations of the application of law:
It gives them the foundations needed to grow from there. Let me give you an example
that I give employees of mine as well. I always tell them you know that it's like building a
home, you know the new attorney is my blueprint. The new attorney is, like, my you
know, has already gone through architectural planning and engineering planning. But if
they don't know how to lay the concrete if they don't know how to lay the block if they
don't know how to do electrical, if they don't know how to do plumbing, then their
blueprint and architectural and engineering planning means nothing today
Similarly, Participants 3 expressed the importance of experiential learning as a foundational need
in learning how to be a litigator, citing that the lack of experiential learning experience in
litigation presents difficulties as a litigator when it is time to practice. Participant 1 expressed
how experiential learning provides real-life practical experience into what it is like to work as a
75

litigator, and ultimately better prepares recent law school graduates to understand what is
happening in a case:
They start taking a step back and realizing know what it might not be so easy, and I think
that’s the insight that you get when you work in a clerkship in a law firm in a real-life
practical environment and you get exposure to that type of frustration and it helps you be
a better lawyer, when you get out.
Participant 2 found law school combined with experiential learning to be useful based on the
knowledge gained from practicing. Additionally, Participant 3 expressed how experiential
learning is beneficial for a career as a litigator as theoretical learning in law school is insufficient
in preparing recent graduates:
Oh it's very useful um it comes in very handy because theoretical learning only give
provides so much.

Table 11
Quote Summary from Interviews 1: Law School Education Combined with Experiential Learning
Sub-theme # of participants mentioning Key quotes
Foundational experience 4 “It gives them the
foundations needed to
grow” (Participant 4)
Provides practice experience 3 “Its one thing to have the
theoretical, but its another
things to practice”
(Participant 2)

76

Summary

Based on the results and findings from this section, law firm hiring managers reported
that although experiential learning improves recent law school graduates conceptual
understanding of litigation, it has not necessarily improve their level of self-sufficiency in the
ability to practice. The survey respondents generally reported experiential learning provided a
higher level of conceptual knowledge on the practice of litigation than law school education
alone. However, the results from law school education alone displayed higher levels of self-
sufficiency and expertise in recent law school graduates as it pertains to preparedness for a career
as a litigator. Hiring managers reported higher rates of conceptual knowledge when experiential
learning is combined with law school education, but they reported higher levels of expertise
when asked about the level of expertise law school education alone provides.
The interview participants expressed the value of experiential learning as it equips
students with an introductory level knowledge on the process and steps of litigation. The
participants highlighted the importance of internships, externships, and clerkships as a learning
prerequisite for a career as a litigator, and a supplement to theoretical training within the law
school class setting. Much like the Carnegie report (Sullivan, 2018), this study found that
students benefit from socializing with other litigators to prepare them for practice. However, the
majority of the participants described experiential learning as a foundational tool, rather than a
resource that develops expertise.

77

Research Question 3: What Organizational Challenges do Law Firms Face When Hiring
Recent Law School Graduates for Hire as a Litigator?
The third research question assessed the organizational challenges hiring manager’s face
when hiring recent graduates as litigators. Findings from this section were obtained from the
interview data only, which compared the responses among the participants to generate themes.
Since the focus of this research question was what organizational challenges law firms face when
hiring recent law school graduates for hire as a litigator, the theme was determined based upon a
simple majority (51%) or more of interview respondents identifying competencies as either an
asset or a gap in the area of preparedness. One theme emerged from analysis of the data: Hiring
managers reported that law firms spend additional time and resources training recent law school
graduates once hired which can be time consuming.
The greatest concern among the interview participants focused on the amount of time
they spent in training recent law school graduates to practice as a litigator once hired. The
additional training costs compared to hiring more seasoned lawyers impacted the law firms by
having to reallocate time to train the recent graduates, spending additional time in correcting
mistakes, and enduring the financial risk of acquiring talent that may not be able to perform. All
five participants highlighted this issue of training resources and time as a problem for them in
some way.
Interview Findings
A general concern among the participants was the additional financial cost of training
recent law school graduates to practice litigation. This cost decreases their overall revenue as the
time spent training takes away from time working on cases. All participants affirmed that hiring
a recent graduate generally means hiring an employee with no litigation experience. Attorneys
78

and hiring managers are tasked with having to balance the skills that recent law school graduates
have with what they think the recent graduates need to be successful in litigation. The consensus
among all the participants was the need for additional training limits how much they can use
recent law school graduates in practice.
Participant 5 expressed the complexity of the training process, which includes teaching
recent law school graduates state and federal laws, court filings, and court systems. Furthermore,
Participant 5 expressed how it is easier to do the work based on the amount of time spent training
and highlighted the stresses of pulling another attorney from a case to train:
One of the downsides will be training them by when you had a recent graduate you spent
so much time training them ’it's pretty much almost as much time doing the actual work
The participant further discussed the downside of recent graduates not knowing how to interact
with clients, and how detrimental it can be to a case when the information is disclosed to the
wrong parties. Similarly, Participant 1 described training costs associated with hiring recent
graduates as a financial investment and highlighted certain skillsets initially missing in recent
law school graduates when hired:
In the 19 years I’ve trained three associates and I’m now starting a fourth. It starts out
where they don't know how to litigate, they don't know how to frame pleadings and
formulate motions. In order to be the most well-presented and effective it takes time, and
they see it, and, over time, they start replicating the way that I like things done and that's
an investment.
Lastly, Participant 4 expressed the lack of training on foundational skills in recent law school
graduates, and further explained how recent graduates have to also be trained on how to interact
with clients:
79

I shouldn't have to train them on the foundations of the law. But I find myself and my
colleagues find ourselves having to train associates how to deal with a client, and if they
don't have the people skills to do that, we're going to have a problem. I mean you could
be the smartest associate in the world but if you do not know how to interact with a client
with colleagues, with staff, with judges, there's a problem absolutely so you would say
the interaction is the biggest problem.

Table 12
Quote Summary from Interviews 2: Organizational Challenges

Sub-theme # of participants
mentioning
Key quotes
Time spent training 5 “we cannot use them until they
have training” (Participant 2)

80

Summary

The additional time spent training recent law school graduate to practice is an
organizational burden to law firms and hiring managers. Law firms are tasked with having to
reallocate their time and resources to train recent law school graduates to a level of self -
sufficiency where they can be used. Additional training includes having to assess what skills
need to be taught on a case-by-case basis in order to perform well in practice. Additionally, the
participants expressed concern about the need to task tenured attorneys with the burden of
training new graduates while also managing their own cases and time spent training recent law
school graduates who ultimately may decide to pursue a different area of law after the firm
invests in their training.
Summary of Results and Findings
This study found law school education is deficient in teaching the theoretical aspects of
the law to a level of self-sufficiency. According to the survey and interview participants, law
school only prepares recent law school graduates with conceptual knowledge regarding
theoretical aspects of the law. The results and findings demonstrated areas of weakness regarding
hiring managers perception of recent graduates’ ability to think like a lawyer. The study also
demonstrated that law school education is insufficient in teaching the practical application of
law. The survey data collected from the respondents, demonstrated that law school education is
insufficient in teaching the practical application of law. This includes assessing relevant case
facts, understanding inconsistencies in cases, and conducting sufficient legal research. The
participants reported that experiential learning improves recent law school graduates’ conceptual
understanding of litigation but does not improve their level of self-sufficiency in the ability to
practice. Additionally, experiential learning was reported to equip students with an introductory
81

level knowledge on the process and steps of litigation; however, experiential learning was
highlighted as a foundational tool rather than a resource that produces expertise. The findings did
not establish the effectiveness that law school education coupled with experiential learning
provides in preparing recent law school graduates for practice to a level of self-sufficiency.
Although experiential learning was reported to increase conceptual knowledge in recent law
school graduates, experiential learning was still reported as deficient in teaching law school
graduates to practice without guidance
The overall lack of preparedness in recent law school graduates was found to impact law
firms financially. The hiring managers reported that law firms are tasked with having to
reallocate their time and resources to train recent law school graduates to a level of preparedness
that they can be used. Furthermore, the additional time spent training recent law school graduate
to practice becomes an organizational burden to law firms.

82

Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
The purpose of the study was to explore whether changes made to law school curriculum
after the inception of the American Bar Association’s Standard 303(b) accreditation sufficiently
prepares recent law school graduates for a career in private practice as a litigator from the
perspective of law firm hiring managers. Based on a modified Clark and Estes (2008) gap
analysis framework, this study only explored knowledge and organizational influences. This
chapter summarizes the study by discussing the results and findings in the context of practice
ready content in law school curriculum for a career as a litigator. The subsequent sections will
relate the findings back to relevant literature review, clarify the emergent themes that were
generated by the study, establish recommendations for practice, describe the study’s limitations
and delimitations, make recommendations for future research, and conclude by addressing
implications for equity in the field.
Discussion Of Results and Findings
The finding from this study highlighted a lack in progression as it pertains to the level of
preparedness recent law school graduates have for a career as a litigator. Guided by the Clark
and Estes (2008) gap analysis model, the overall results and findings assessed potential causes
for gaps in performance and evaluated the study in the areas of knowledge and organizational
influences (Clark & Estes, 2008). Similar to the Carnegie Report (CLEA, 2014; Miller, 2011;
Sullivan et al., 2007; Sullivan, 2018; Wegner, 2011), the majority of hiring managers from this
research still believe law schools do not provide the necessary knowledge and experience for
students to perform at a level of self-sufficiency as practicing professionals in the law firm
context, which presents organizational challenges for law firms when hiring recent law school
graduates. Recent law school graduates were found by hiring managers to have conceptual level
83

of knowledge as it pertains to preparedness for practice as a litigator. For the purpose of this
study, the conceptual level of knowledge represented a foundation level of knowledge.
Recent law school graduates are still seen as unprepared for the reality and
responsibilities of a lawyer among the hiring managers who participated in this study, similarly
to the results of prior studies conducted before the inception of Standard 303(b) (Abrams, 2015;
Sullivan et al., 2007; Sullivan, 2018). The 2007 Carnegie Report found that law school
curriculum only focuses on the cognitive realm of law, and the lack of practical experience made
it difficult for students to understand the day-to-day needs, structure, and stressors of the practice
(Sullivan et al., 2007; Sullivan, 2018 Wegner, 2011). Conducted 15 years after the Carnegie
Report, the results and findings from this research found that hiring managers still believe such
deficiency in law school curriculum exists. Even combined with experiential learning, the data
highlighted a lack of self-sufficient knowledge in recent law school graduates for the practice of
litigation. This study demonstrated that law school education is still seen as deficient in
preparing recent graduates for practice among hiring managers; at best, law school was seen as
preparing recent law school graduates with a conceptual level of knowledge. Furthermore, the
lack of preparedness presents organizational challenges for law firms, which are tasked with
having to provide additional training for recent graduates upon hiring.
In congruence to the knowledge influences from the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis
model, the survey results and interview findings highlighted how recent law school graduates are
only equipped with a conceptual level of knowledge regarding preparedness for litigation.
Approximately 53% of hiring managers reported that law school education is insufficient at
preparing recent law school graduates to a level of self-sufficiency when it comes to areas
regarding the theory of law. Only 13.3% of hiring managers reported recent law school graduates
84

can think like a lawyer at a level of self-sufficiency post law school education. All five interview
participants reported recent law school graduates have insufficient knowledge to practice as a
litigator right after law school, and they cited an overall need for more application of practice
and real-time experience. In addition, experiential learning combined with law school education
was found to provide higher levels of conceptual knowledge on how to practice as a litigator, but
lower levels of expertise were reported when compared to the findings from law school
education alone. Overall findings from the interviews with hiring managers reported experiential
learning as an effective means to introduce recent law school graduates to the process and steps
of litigation. However, the hiring managers still reported a need for additional training of recent
law school graduates upon hiring to be prepared for litigation and prevent organizational
challenges for the firms.
Based on the organizational influences using the lens of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap
analysis model, the interview findings highlighted the institutional aspects of the law school
experience that present challenges for law firms when hiring recent law school graduates to their
firm. The five interview participants emphasized the importance of internships, externships, and
clerkships as a learning prerequisite for a career as a litigator. However, the interview findings
still demonstrated a need for additional training for recent law school graduates, which ultimately
becomes an organizational challenge financially and in productivity. The participants all
expressed how employing recent law school graduates typically means hiring an employee with
no litigation experience which is expected. The lack of experience further limits how limits how
much they can use recent law school graduates in practice. The participants highlighted
insufficiency in litigation specific skills such as interpersonal skills, filing cases with the courts,
interacting with clients, and specific software used in litigation. Additional training costs
85

associated with hiring recent graduates were likened to a financial investment and an increase in
organizational overhead. Law firms are tasked with having to use seasoned attorneys to train
recent law school graduates which takes practice time away from those attorneys.
Similar to the Carnegie Report (CLEA, 2014; Miller, 2011; Sullivan et al., 2007;
Sullivan, 2018; Wegner, 2011), this study’s results and findings demonstrated favorable
outcomes in areas that enhanced legal literacy and critical thinking during the law school
experience, such as performing legal research, knowing the statute of limitation, knowing what
counts in litigation, and other areas that are taught via the case method of learning (Wegner,
2011). However, the overall data from both the surveys and interviews demonstrated a lack of
preparedness for litigation practice that is not rectified when including experiential learning in
the law school experience. The knowledge and organizational findings of this study served as a
catalyst for the recommendations highlighted in the following sections.
Recommendations For Practice
The purpose of this study was to explore changes made to law school curriculum after the
inception of the Standard 303(b) accreditation and examine whether curriculum within law
schools sufficiently prepares recent law school graduates for a career in private practice as a
litigator from the perspective of law firm hiring managers. Using a modified Clark and Estes
(2008) gap analysis model, this research utilized surveys and interviews to better understand the
perception hiring managers have regarding the preparedness of recent graduates based on law
school education alone. There are three recommendations identified below to address the key
findings: (a) Retain the case method as standard in legal education, (b) redefine the standard
303(a)(3) definition, and (c) rewrite the Standard 303(a)(2) to include paralegal experience as a
qualifier.
86

Recommendation 1: The Case Method Should Remain Standard in Legal Education
Similar to the Carnegie Report (CLEA, 2014; Miller, 2011; Sullivan et al., 2007;
Sullivan, 2018; Wegner, 2011), this research found law school education has effectiveness in
promoting the socialization of students to a unified method of cognition at a minimum of
conceptual level of knowledge which represents a foundational level of understanding. The
survey results reported 53.3% of hiring managers found law school education alone prepares
recent law school graduates to think like a lawyer at a conceptual level or higher. However, ,
80% of hiring managers reported law school education combined with experiential learning
prepares recent law school graduates to think like a lawyer at a conceptual level or higher. It is
therefore recommended that law school institutions continue to develop cognition skills of its
students by keeping the case method as a tool of learning in law school education and improve
how it is taught to enhance the preparedness for litigation in recent law school graduates to a
higher level of self-sufficiency or expertise. Although the case method was not the focus of this
study, the data from this study combined with prior research has found it to be effective in
helping students to adopt legal literacy and enhance their critical thinking skills (Sullivan et al.,
2007; Sullivan, 2018). By utilizing the case method to teach in law school education, students to
are able to learn what type of knowledge counts and how to utilize that knowledge in the practice
of litigation.
It is important to maintain the case method of learning in law school education as it has
been found to teach law school students to think quickly and effectively apply legal reasoning
(LexisNexis, 2015; Sullivan, 2018). The cases examined during law school courses are
simulations of real cases aspiring litigators may face. Case method has been proven to help
87

student think like a lawyer, which is still an important skill set (LexisNexis, 2015; Sullivan,
2018).
This study found law school education prepares recent law school graduates to think like
a lawyer and understand case facts at a conceptual level of knowledge, but the study also
demonstrated potential inconsistencies. The survey respondents were not specifically asked
about how the case method of learning influences recent law school graduates’ ability to obtain a
level of cognition that prepares them for practice as a litigator. Therefore, this recommendation is
not solely based on the survey results but incorporates prior research that specifically examined
the effectiveness of the case method of learning in law school education.
Recommendation 2: The American Bar Association Should Redefine the Standard
303(a)(3) Definition
The results from this study did not demonstrate a significant increase in expertise beyond
a foundationa; level of knowledge as it pertains to the effectiveness experiential learning has in
preparing recent graduates to practice as a litigator. However, prior research performed before
the American Bar Associations Standard 303 mandates were implemented (ABA-SRPA, 2021)
suggest that internships and clerkships in legal has been proven to be an effective method of
successfully transitioning recent law school graduates into the practice (Dinovitzer, et al., 2014;
Jones, 2015; Stark & Hunt, 2015; Sullivan et al, 2007). Similarly, all five of the interview
participants affirmed the value in internships and clerkships, with Participant 3 confirming its
ability to provide practical experience:
Clerkships do have some relevance right they actually are you saying that they actually
give you that practical application of the law versus just thinking like a lawyer
88

Given this study’s findings and prior research, it is recommended that the American Bar
Association revise the Standard 303(a)(3) mandate to redefine experiential learning during law
school as an internship, externship, clerkship, or law clinic. Although law clinics were not
included in the survey definition of experiential learning and the surveys do not suggest that
redefining experiential learning will increase self-sufficiency in recent law school graduates, the
Carnegie Report demonstrated that law clinics provide students with the same real time litigation
experience as internships, externships, and clerkships (UT Law, 2022). In addition, it is
recommended that the required credit hours for experiential learning consider being increased
from 6 credit hours to 12 credit hours based on the results and findings from this study. Although
this recommendation may present economic challenges for recent graduates and potentially
increase their time spent in law school, it will ensure a hands-on practical experience for recent
law school graduates and provide them with more time to retain information, which is expected
to reduce the amount of training time spent when entering private practice.
Approximately 80% of the interviewed hiring managers reported how recent law school
graduate with the foundation of what the law is but are not trained on the necessary interpersonal
skills, client management skills, research skills, and office management skills. The lack of
interpersonal skills was expressed by Participant 4 during the interview portion of this study:
Myself and my colleagues find ourselves having to train associates how to deal with a
client, and if they don't have the people skills to do that, we're going to have a problem.
For these reasons, simulation courses should be excluded from the revision of Standard
303(a)(3). This study’s findings suggest requiring law students to hold field placement or law
clinic positions rather than simulation courses will further help recent law school graduates
further develop the skills needed to be self-sufficient in practicing as a successful litigator
89

immediately after law school. Four out of five interview participants confirmed the importance
of real experience. Participant 1 further highlighted this by expressing how the learning received
in a real-life practical environment provides exposure to the type of daily frustrations of the
practice which helps create better lawyers. Furthermore, prior research demonstrates that
employers value a blend of competencies that include both discipline-based knowledge and soft
skills (Majid, et al., 2012; Seibel et al., 1996). Excluding simulation courses from the Standard
303(a)(3) definition of experiential learning and solely defining experiential learning as field
placements or law clinics, will provide students with the real time experience that most of
interview participants highlighted as lacking in recent law school graduates. Although the survey
results from this study only demonstrated an increase in conceptual knowledge when combining
experiential learning with law school education, the results may be based on how many hours of
experiential learning the student had in combination with the pressure of balancing schoolwork
with learning on the job, which may be a subject for future research.
An increase in experiential learning hours can be expected to provide recent law school
graduates with more time to develop their skills and be better prepared for practice upon
graduation. A successful example of this is illustrated at Weil Cornell Medical School (Gelber,
2018). Although traditional medical students serve as interns’ post-graduation, Weil Cornell
Medical School introduces its students to clinical experiences during their first year of medical
school and allows them to follow patients under the guidance of faculty mentors. The hands-on
learning experience provides students with first-hand experience in what it is like to be a doctor
and increases their “physicianship” skills (Gelber, 2018, p.1). Similarly, additional exposure to
the litigation during law school is anticipated to enhance the skills of recent law school graduates
by providing them with more real time experience. In addition, increasing the credit hours of
90

experiential learning in law school will help reduce the amount of time law firms spend training
recent law school graduates upon hiring.
Recommendation 3: The American Bar Association May Benefit from Rewriting the
Standard 303(a)(2) to Include Paralegal Experience as a Qualifier
This interview findings from this study highlighted the importance of recent law school
graduates having sufficient experience outside of the classroom to prepare them for a career in
litigation. Participant 5 reiterated the importance of having more than just theoretical learning
from the classroom setting: “Theoretical learning, okay, only give provides so much.”
Similarly, the Carnegie Report suggested that law school education pay more attention to
formative methods of learning as means to provide a practical learning experience for students
(Sullivan, 2018). For these reasons, it is recommended that paralegal experience be added as a
qualifier to the Standard 303(a)(2). Standard 303(a)(2) currently requires each law school student
to complete one writing experience in the first year of law school and at least one additional
writing experience after the first year of law school (ABA-SRPA, 2021). This change will make
experience working as a paralegal during law school equal to a writing experience, which is
currently required by the American Bar Association.
A paralegal is a person, qualified by educational training or work experience, to work for
a lawyer, law office, corporation, governmental agency, or other entity, and perform substantive
legal work for which a lawyer is responsible (ABA, 2020B). Paralegals assist attorneys in
litigation, and they perform tasks that include extensive writing and research. Requiring law
students to work as paralegals will serve as an introduction to the profession from a foundational
level, and the work will provide students with real-time writing experience for actual cases.
Feedback from the interviews demonstrated value in experiential learning as it pertains to
91

exposing recent law school graduates to the practice of litigation. Participant 1, for example,
expressed how field placements in the form of clerkships provide practical experience that
prepares recent law school graduates for practicing law once they graduate. Additionally, Miller
(2011) found that recent law school graduates lack experience in both research and document
drafting. As a paralegal, recent law school graduates will have the opportunity to be initiated into
the legal culture and have ample opportunity to practice the practical application of law by
performing necessary litigation tasks. Such tasks include writing and drafting legal documents,
interacting with clients, and performing procedures of trial from filing to the courtroom. They
will have first-hand exposure to a litigation practice, without the liabilities that come with being
an attorney.
Integrated Recommendations
The results and findings from this study demonstrated a need to revise existing
procedures and mandates currently used in law school curriculum. In order to better prepare
recent law school graduates for practice as a litigator upon graduation, it is recommended that (a)
law school curriculum continue to use the case method of learning to teach, (b) the American Bar
Association revise the Standard 303(a) mandate to redefine experiential learning, and (c)
paralegal experience be added as a qualifier to the Standard 303(a)(2). The revisions made to the
existing format of American law school curriculum should be evaluated in 6 years.
Accomplishing a delayed evaluation allows time for the changes to be implemented and the
effectiveness of the program implementation to be evaluated (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
The first recommendation does not require a change in either the existing law school
curriculum or budget. Under this recommendation, law school institutions will continue to
develop the cognition skills of its students by keeping the case method as a method of learning.
92

Educators will continue to review case work with law students to further help students enhance
their legal literacy and critical thinking skills (Sullivan et al., 2007; Sullivan, 2018). Similarly,
the third recommendation will not require an additional budget increase for law schools.
Revising the standard 303(a)(2) mandate to allow paralegal experience during law school to
count as a qualifier for the required writing experience will provide students with an additional
opportunity to gain real-time writing experience. Students who are able to attain paralegal
positions or internships during their first year of law school, and after, should be credited 3
elective credit hours per every semester towards the required goal. This will increase the amount
of field exposure in recent law school graduates (ABA-SRPA, 2021).
In congruence with the revisions made to the Standard 303(a)(3) mandate, the case
method will continue to serve as supplementary learning to experiential learning experiences at
no additional cost to the law school. The revisions to the Standard 303(a)(3) mandate to redefine
experiential learning and increase experiential learning credit hours will require law schools to
either increase the amount of students who can participate in law school clinics at one time or
increase the amount of substantial opportunities for clerkships, internships, and externships.
Developing multiple law clinics that specialize in various areas of litigation is the most effective
route for law schools to ensure their students are getting sufficient experiential learning
opportunities in the event that they are unable to secure enough internships, externships, and
clerkships for their students with local law firms and judges. Students will also benefit from
participating in clinics that align with the area of litigation they wish to enter. An example of this
recommendation can be explored by reviewing the University of Texas at Austin School of Law
experiential learning clinics program (UT Law, 2022). This tier 1 law school offers its students
15 law clinics that cover a variety of legal issues. The program provides low student-to-faculty
93

ratios and small size clinics to ensure students are able to work closely on real cases with an
experienced faculty member (UT Law, 2022).
An increase in the amount of law clinics offered will require additional support in
running the clinics. However, increasing the amount of credit hours students are required to take
from 6 credit hours to 12 credits hours will provide the clinics with additional support needed to
run several clinics at once. Law schools will then only need to focus potential costs and tuition
increases associated with running additional law clinics. A 2014 study demonstrated that law
schools that required credit baring law clinics or externships on average did not charge students’
higher tuition (Kuehn, 2014). Therefore, it is recommended that these law clinics not only take
on pro bono clients, but also a few paying cases in order to offset unforeseen costs associated
with running additional law clinics.
Evaluation Using the Kirkpatrick New World Model
The Kirkpatrick New World Model (2016) is a training model that uses formative and
summative methods to evaluate and gauge the quality of training programs (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Using the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) New World Model, this
integrated program will need to be reviewed in 8 years to evaluate the overall preparedness in
recent graduates after the recommended revisions. An evaluation after 8 years will provide a
minimum of three graduating cohorts to be used as a sample to review the outcomes from the
recommended revisions made with at least two years to analyze data from the outcomes
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). In addition, formative evaluations will need to be made after
each graduating class to ensure the changes are being implemented the way they have been
recommended in this study. This will increase the validity and credibility of the overall findings
at the 8
th
year final evaluation mark.
94

The evaluation will utilize the four levels associated with the Kirkpatrick New World
Model: reaction, learning, behavior, and results. The levels in this model were designed to assess
the effectiveness of the recommended changes and show the value the changes have brought to
the field of law. The first level, which represents reaction, will evaluate the reaction of law firm
hiring managers who employed law school graduates from the sample of graduating cohorts. At
this level, evaluations will assess the initial reaction to the training program and how its impacted
law firm culture. The second level, which represents learning, will assess how self-sufficient
recent law school graduates are at practicing litigation based on the feedback of hiring managers
who have employed recent law school graduates from the sample graduating cohorts. The third
level, which represents behavior, will assess how well recent graduates are applying the
knowledge gained from the revised law school programs in their practice as a litigator also based
on the feedback of their hiring manager. Lastly, level 4 will represent results, and asses the
degree to which the recommended changed improved self-sufficiency for practice as a litigation
in recent law school graduates. This will be measured by feedback from both hiring manager and
recent law school graduates that participate in the program.
Limitations And Delimitations
Limitations in research refer to influences outside of the control of the researcher, and
delimitations in research refer to boundaries in research made by the researcher (Theofanidis &
Fountouki, 2018). The primary limitation in this study was being able to ensure that the
information received from the participants was accurate and uninfluenced by pre-existing data.
This ensured authentic and unbiased responses from the participants (Couper et al., 2008).
Although each participant was not privy to the questions asked prior to the administering of the
surveys and interviews, I could not guarantee that the participants did not already have pre-
95

existing information on the topic. Based on the popularity and history of the subject matter in the
legal profession, it would not have been surprising if some of the participants had already been
exposed to statistical information on the lack of practice-ready content in law school curriculum.
Having prior knowledge on this matter could limit the amount of raw and unbiased data gathered
from participants.
Another limitation from this study was a lack of survey and interview questions regarding
the effectiveness of the case method of learning, law clinics, and simulation courses, and a lack
of clarity regarding the surveys’ Likert scale options. The case method of learning was
demonstrated as an effective tool for learning in the Carnegie report (Sullivan, 2018), but
questions focused on this tool were neglected for review in the initial scope of the research
design. Existing research on the case method coupled with participant feedback warranted
addressing the case method as a recommendation. Law clinics and simulation courses should
have also been reviewed as they are currently defined by the American Bar Association as an
experiential learning opportunity (ABA-SRPA, 2021). Both the survey and interview questions
should have explored how effective simulation courses are in preparing recent graduates for
practice as a litigator compared to field opportunities. In addition, the survey instrument should
have used the foundational knowledge as an option rather than conceptual knowledge to avoid
misinterpretation amongst the respondents. Foundational knowledge would have also been a
better fit with the other four answer options on the Likert scale, which asked the participants to
clarify the level of preparedness amongst recent graduates for a career as a litigator.
Delimitation in research is defined as the boundaries set in research that highlight what to
include and exclude from your research (Theofanidis et al., 2018). The primary delimitation for
this study was related to the criteria set forth for participation and recruitment. Most of the
96

participants for this study were identified on LinkedIn, and they were approached based on
whether the information they provided in their profiles met the established criteria to participate
in this study. However, it is not uncommon for LinkedIn users to forget to update their profiles,
and it is likely that individuals who otherwise would meet the criteria for the study do not have
LinkedIn profiles. These considerations directly limited the population of people that the
researcher was able to recruit for research.
Recommendations for Future Research
I recommend future research explore the impact simulation courses and legal clinics have
on preparedness for litigation rather than just field placements. By exploring the effectiveness of
simulation courses and legal clinics, researchers will be able to assess how effective the current
state of law school education is in preparing recent graduates for a career as a litigator. I also
recommend changes in the design of future studies. Specifically, increasing the number of
interview participants from five to at least 15 hiring managers who specialize in various areas of
litigation would improve the generalizability of the study. Furthermore, I recommend future
research highlight the size of the law firm the interview participants represent to assess the
differentiators in global law firm hiring processes compared to smaller and midsized law firms.
This would also provide more data to analyze and strengthen the credibility of the findings. It
would also be beneficial to make the survey instrument shorter to prevent participants from
losing interest halfway through the survey and to have used different Likert scale answer options
for each question to better capture how prepared recent graduates are for practice as a litigator.
Changing the conceptual knowledge Likert scale option to foundational knowledge would also
eliminate potential misinterpretation from the participants and ensure greater accuracy in
97

participant responses. Additionally, the survey questions would be better used to supplement the
interview questions rather than serve as a staple piece of the research.
Lastly, I would further recommend assessing the impact different law school programs
have on preparing students for practice. Participant 3 expressed how preparedness can sometimes
vary based on the law school program, which further highlighted how a small group of less
reputable schools do better at preparing recent graduates for litigation:
When I meet somebody that graduated from Nova, out of which is a smaller school that’s
not a top tier school that's out of the east coast of Florida, they seem to produce people
who are really good at litigation.
Assessing the impact law schools have on preparedness will further strengthen the validity and
credibility of the study. Lastly, the results from the study may have been influenced by how
many hours of experiential learning the student had in combination with the pressure of
balancing schoolwork with learning on the job. For this reason, it is recommended that future
research explore this topic further to determine the impact workload from school has on
preparedness from the perspective of graduates.
Conclusion
This study presented moments of inconclusiveness, but the findings demonstrated
remarkable opportunities that could be used to drive change in the law school experience. This
problem was important to solve as industry respondents have criticized law education for the
lack of application training (Barry 2012). This caused law firms to become more unwilling to
pay for the additional training costs for recent law school graduates, which has ultimately led law
firms to avoid hiring recent graduates and opting to hire more tenured attorneys (Burke, 2019;
Lexis Nexis, 2015; Niedwiecki, 2015). The data from this study demonstrated that law school
98

curriculum still has much-needed improvement to be made in order to prepare students to be
self-sufficient in practice as a litigator immediately out of law school. A key finding of this study
is that not much has changed regarding the preparedness for practice since the 2007 Carnegie
report was released (Sullivan, 2018). However, this study did demonstrate that law school
education alone still provides some value in preparing its students for careers as a litigator. Such
value was even highlighted in this study as superseding the value of both experiential learning
and law school education combined in some cases. This trend has directly led to declining job
placement rates for recent law school graduates, and fewer available entry level law jobs (Stark
& Hunt, 2019).
As a researcher, I hope that future research continues to explore how law school evolves
in preparing students for a career in litigation and provides options to increase the level of
practice preparedness in recent graduates.

99

References

Abrams, J.A. (2015). Reframing the socratic method. Journal of Legal Education, 64(4), 562-
585. https://jle.aals.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1289&context=home
American Bar Association (ABA) (2020). Employment outcomes as of April 2020 (Class of
2019 Graduates). American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admission to
the Bar.
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admi
ssions_to_the_bar/statistics/2019-law-graduate-employment-data.pdf
American Bar Association (ABA) (2021). Chapter 3: Program of Legal Education,
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admi
ssions_to_the_bar/standards/2020-2021/2020-21-aba-standards-and-rules-chapter3.pdf
American Bar Association (ABA) (2021C). Information for Lawyers: How Paralegals Can
Improve Your Practice. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/paralegals/profession-
information/information_for_lawyers_how_paralegals_can_improve_your_practice/#:~:t
ext=For%20example%2C%20paralegals%20can%20review,the%20unauthorized%20pra
ctice%20of%20law
American Bar Association (ABA-SRPA)(2021). ABA standards and rules of procedure for
approval of law schools 2020-2021.
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admi
ssions_to_the_bar/standards/2020-2021/2020-21-aba-standards-and-rules-chapter3.pdf
Bellia, A. (2010). Federal regulation of state court procedures. The Yale Law Journal, 110(6),
947-1001.
100

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1175&context=law_faculty_sc
holarship
Berry, M.M. (2012). Practice ready: are we there yet? Boston College of Law & Social Justice,
32(247), 247-276.
https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/jlsj/vol32/iss2/3
Bora, B. (2015). The essence of soft skills. International Journal of Innovative Research and
Practices, 3(12), 2321-2926.
file:///C:/Users/eliodu02/Downloads/The_Essence_of_Soft_Skills%20(1).pdf
Burk, B.A.(2014). What’s new about the new normal: The evolving market for new lawyers
in The 21
st
Century. FIU Law Review, 41(3), 541-608.
https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol41/iss3/1
Burk, B.A. (2019). The new normal ten years in: The job market for new lawyers today and
what it means for the legal academy tomorrow. FIU Law Review, 13(3), 341-382.
https://dx.doi.org/10.25148/lawrev.13.3.5
Cappelli, P. H. (2015). Skill gaps, skill shortages, and skill mismatches: Evidence and
arguments for the United States. ILR Review, 68(2), 251
290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793914564961
Chen, S.S-C, Stapleton, S., Ratliff, J., Blevins, A. (2017). Business students’ perceptions of
expected skills and traits for their professional success. Review of Contemporary
Business Research, 6(2), 1-9.
https://scholarworks.moreheadstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1893&context=msu_
faculty_research
Clark, R.E. (2009). Translating research into new instructional technologies for higher education:

101

the active ingredient process. Journal of Computing in Higher Education High Educ 21,
4–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-009-9013-8
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Clinical Legal Education Association. (2014). Comment of clinical legal education
association on proposed standard 303.
https://www.cleaweb.org/Resources/Documents/20140114%20CLEA%20Chapter%203
%20comment.pdf
Coco, M. (2000). Internships: A try before you buy arrangement. SAM Advanced
Management Journal, 65(2), 41-47. 10.4236/jbcpr.2018.64014
Couper, M. P., Singer, E., Conrad, F. G., & Groves, R. M. (2008). Risk of disclosure,
perceptions of risk, and concerns about privacy and confidentiality as factors in survey
participation. Journal of Official Statistics, 24(2), 255–275.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096944/pdf/nihms269709.pdf
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Croasmun, J.T., & Ostrom, L. (2011). Using likert-type scales in the social sciences. Journal
of Adult Education, 40(1), 19. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ961998.pdf
Derocher, R.J. (2012). What’s going on in legal. Bar Leader, 36(3),
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/bar_services/publications/bar_leader/2011_12/sprin
g/legaled/
Dickinson, J. (2009). Understanding the socratic method in law school teaching after the
102

carnegie foundations educating lawyers. Western New England Law Review, 31(1), 97-
113.
https://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=
1004&context=lawreview
Dinovitzer, R., Garth, B. G., Plickert, G., Sandefur, R., Sterling, J., Wilkins, D., & Nelson, R. L.
(2014). After the JD III: Third results from a national study of legal careers. American
Bar Foundation and NALP Foundation for Law Career Research and Education.
Ehiyazaryan, E. and Barraclough, N. (2009), Enhancing employability: integrating real world
experience in the curriculum. Education & Training, 51(4), 292-308.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F09504222211063140
Ferguson, D. (2014). What is the carnegie report and why does it matter? Slaw.
http://www.slaw.ca/2014/05/21/what-is-the-carnegie-report-and-why-does-it-matter/
Field, E. (2006). Educational debt burden and career choice: Evidence from a financial aid
experiment at NYU Law School. National Bureau of Economic Research,
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w12282/w12282.pdf
Gault, J., Leach, E., Duey, M. (2010). Effects of business internships on job
marketability: The employers' perspective. Education + Training, 52(1), 76-88.
https://digitalcommons.wcupa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?httpsredir=1&article=1002&cont
ext=mark_facpub
Gault, J., Redington, J. & Schlager, T. (2000). Undergraduate business internships and career
success: Are they related? Journal of Marketing Education ,22(1), 45-53.
https://digitalcommons.wcupa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=mark_facp
ub
103

Gelber, S.E. (2018). Emphasizing Experiential Learning in Medical Education. New York
Presbyterian. https://www.nyp.org/publications/professional-
advances/gynecology/emphasizing-experiential-learning-in-medical
Gerkman, A., & DeMeola, Z. (2018). Foundations for Practice: The “Whole Lawyer” and the
Path to Competency for New Lawyers., http://iaals.du.edu/educating-
tomorrows-lawyers/publications/foundations-practice-survey-overview-and-
methodological
Heale, R. & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evidence Based
Nursing, 0(0), 1-2.
file:///C:/Users/eliodu02/Downloads/HealeandTwycross2015valandrelquan.pdf
Hite, R., & Joseph B. (1986). Student expectations regarding collegiate internship
programs in marketing. Journal of Marketing Education, 8, 41-49.
https://doi.org/10.1177/027347538600800309
Holmquist, K. (2012). Challenging Carnegie. Journal of Legal Education, 61(3). 353-378
file:///C:/Users/eliodu02/Downloads/fulltext%20(1).pdf
Jackson, K., Lower, C.L., & Rudman, W.J. (2016). The crossroads between workforce and
education. Perspectives in Health Information Management, 13(Spring), 1g.
https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/4832131
Judge, T.A. & .Bono, J.E. (2001), Relationship of core self -evaluations traits–self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability – with job satisfaction
and job performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(1),
80-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80
Jones, R.L. (2015). Integrating experimental learning into the law school curriculum. Elon
104

Law Review, 7(1), 1-108
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2213&context=law_faculty_sc
holarship
Kaliyadan F, Kulkarni V. (2019). Types of Variables, Descriptive Statistics, and Sample Size.
Indian Dermatol Online J 10(1):82-86.
https://journals.lww.com/idoj/Fulltext/2019/10010/Types_of_Variables,_Descriptive_Sta
tistics,_and.19.aspx
Katz, M.J. (2013). Facilitating better law teaching- Now. Emory Law Journal, 62(823), 823-
850.
https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1265&context=elj
Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick (2016). An introduction to the new world kirkpatrick model.
Kirkpatrick Partners. https://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/11/Introduction-to-the-Kirkpatrick-New-World-Model.pdf
Lane, R. (2021, May 21). Average student loan debt for law school graduates. Nerd Wallet.
https://www.nerdwalletcom/article/loans/student-loans/average-student-loan-debt-law-
school
Law Insider (2021). Existing client definition. https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/existing-
client
Lee, P.G. (2011, July 11). Law schools brush up on practical skills. Wall Street Journal.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-LB-40383
LexisNexis. (2015). White paper: Hiring managers reveal new attorney readiness for real world
practice. LexisNexis.
https://www.lexisnexis.com/documents/pdf/20150325064926_large.pdf
105

Law School Transparency (LST) (2022). Law School Enrollment; Trends Reports.
https://www.lawschooltransparency.com/trends/enrollment/all
Madison, B.V. (2008). The elephant in law school classrooms: Overuse of the socratic method
as an obstacle to teaching modern law students. University of Detroit Mercy Law
Review, 85, 293-346. file:///C:/Users/eliodu02/Downloads/SSRN-id1266869.pdf
Majid, S., Liming, Z., Tong, S., & Raihana, S. (2012). Importance of soft skills for education
and career success. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education,
(IJCDSE) 2(2), 1036-1042. https://infonomics-society.org/wp-
content/uploads/ijcdse/published-papers/special-issue-volume-2-2012/Importance-of-
Soft-Skills-for-Education-and-Career-Success.pdf
Mangan, K. (2011). Law schools revamp their curricula to teach practical skills. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 57(26), 1-3.
https://law2.wlu.edu/deptimages/news/thirdyearchronicle.pdf
Marks, A.A., & Moss, S.A. (2016). What predicts law student success? A longitudinal study
correlating law student applicant data and law school outcomes. Journal of
Emperical Legal Studies, 12(2), 205-265. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12114
Maxeiner, J.R. (2007). Educating lawyers now and then: Two carnegie critiques of the
common law and the case method. International Journal of Legal Information, 35(1),
135.
https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1406&context=all_fac
Miller, N.P. (2011). An Apprenticeship of professional identity: A paradigm for educating
lawyers. Michigan Bar Journal.
https://www.michbar.org/file/barjournal/article/documents/pdf4article1308.pdf
106

Miller, B. (2020). Graduate school debt: Ideas for reducing the $37 billion in annual student
loans that no one is talking about. Center for American Progress.
https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/97738/CollegeAffordabilityGap.pdf
?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2009), Job outlook 2009.
www.naceweb.org
Nikolaidi, M. & Stockhammer, E. (2017). Minsky models: A structured survey. The Journal of
Economic Surveys, 31(5), 1304-133. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12222
Niedwiecki, A.S. (2015). Prepared for practice? Developing a comprehensive assessment plan
for a law school professional skills program. University of San Francisco Law Review,
50(2), 245-290.
https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=
1796&context=pubs
Peterson, E. (2009) Teaching to think: Apply socratic method outside the law school setting.
Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 6(5), 83-88.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.915.5390&rep=rep1&type=pd
f
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye.
Academy of Management Learning & Education ,1, 78 –95.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2002.7373679
Parks, C. (2015). New lawyers believe they are ready for the job; Practicing attorneys
disagree according to first-ever state of the legal field study,
https://www.thebarbrigroup.com/new-lawyers-believe-they-are-ready-for-the-job-
107

practicing-attorneys-disagree-according-to-first-ever-state-of-the-legal-field-study/
Polchin,, C. (2012). Raising the “bar” on law school data reporting: Solutions to the
transparency problem. Penn State University, 117(1), 201-222.
https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4027&context=dlra
Pye, K. (1973). New directions in legal education. Duke Law Journal, 899-809.
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol22/iss4/4
Rigsby, J.T., Addy, N., Herring, C., & Polledo, D. (2013). An examination of internships and
job opportunities. The Journal of Applied Business Research, 29(4), 1131-1144.
https://doi.org/10.19030/jabr.v29i4.7921
Schunk, D.H., & DiBenedetto, M.K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Social cognitive theory. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.),
Educational psychology handbook: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (Vol. 1, pp.
101–123). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13273-005
Seibel, R.F., & Morton, L.H. (1996). Field placement program: practices, problems, and
possibilities. Clinical Law Review 413(2), 413 – 456.
https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&artic
le=1142&context=fs
Stark, D.P., & Hunt, C. (2019). Re-Imagining law school clinics: Leveraging resources to do
more for more, under a hybrid model. Oklahoma City University Law Review, 43(2),
101-141. http://law.okcu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/1-43-2-Stark.pdf
Sullivan, W.M. (2018) After Ten Years: The carnegie report and contemporary legal
108

education. University of St. Thomas Law Journal, 14(2), 331-334.
https://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1414&context=ustlj
Sullivan, W.M., Colby, A., Wegner, J.W., Bond, L., & Shulman (2007). Educating lawyers
preparation for the profession of law. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching.
http://archive.carnegiefoundation.org/publications/pdfs/elibrary/elibrary_pdf_632.pdf
Spencer A.B. (2012). The law school critique in historical perspective. Washington and Lee
Law Review, 69(4), 1949-2063.
https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4300&context=wlulr
Segal, D. (2011). Is law school a losing game?. New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/business/09law.html
Stake, J.E. (2006). The interplay between law school rankings, reputations, and resource
allocation: Ways rankings mislead. Indiana Law Journal, 81(1), 229-270.
http://ilj.law.indiana.edu/articles/81/81_1_Stake.pdf
The American Lawyer (2021) Surveys & Rankings.
https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/rankings/?slreturn=20210524141125
Theofanidis, D., & Fountouki, A. (2018). Limitation and Delimitations in the Research Process.
Perioperative Nursing, 7(3), 155 -163
https://www.spnj.gr/articlefiles/volume7_issue3/pn_sep_73_155_162b.pdf
Thies, D. (2010). Rethinking legal education in hard times: The recession, practical legal
education and the new job market Journal of Legal Education,
http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:3226473
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2014). Daily job crafting and the self -efficacy –
109

performance relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(5),
490-507. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-05-2012-0148
Tipton, E. (2013). Stratified sampling using cluster analysis: A sample selection strategy for
improved generalizations from experiments. Evaluation Review,37(2), 109-139.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X13516324
UT Texas (2022). Experiential Learning: Clinics.
https://law.utexas.edu/clinics/#:~:text=Texas%20Law%20offers%20extensive%20clinica
l,international%20courts%2C%20and%20the%20legislature
Weiser, H. (2011). More history of the regulation of legal education so that we understand
where we are and how we got here. Society of American Law Teachers,
https://www.saltlaw.org/more-history-of-the-regulation-of-legal-education-so-that-we-
understand-where-we-are-and-how-we-got-here/

110

Appendix A: Pre-Invitation Email

Subject: USC Doctoral Research: Invitation to Participate

Good morning,

My name is Eliyah Fey Odusoga. I am a Doctoral student at The University of Southern
California’s (USC) Rossier School of Education. I am currently doing a study on practice
preparedness amongst recent graduates. The purpose of my study is to explore changes made to
law school curriculum after the inception of the Standard 303(b) accreditation and examine
whether curriculum within law schools sufficiently prepares recent law school graduates for a
career in private practice as a litigator from the perspective of law firm hiring managers.

We are seeking feedback from litigators like you, who participate in their firm’s attorney hiring
process. Would you be interested in participating in an anonymous survey for my study?

I have attached additional information on my study for you to review.

Eliyah Fey Kabeya, MBA

111

Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research

INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH

STUDY TITLE: Practice Ready Curriculum in Law School Education

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Eliyah Fey Kabeya, MBA

FACULTY ADVISOR: Jennifer Phillips, Ph.D.

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to explore changes made to law school curriculum after the inception
of the Standard 303(b) accreditation and examine whether curriculum within law schools
sufficiently prepares recent law school graduates for a career in private practice as a litigator
from the perspective of law firm hiring managers. I hope to learn whether law schools are
adequately preparing students for a career in litigation, based on your feedback. You are invited
as a possible participant because you have been identified as being involved in your current firms
hiring team.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
This survey consists of 38 questions asked in Likert and multiple-choice format. If you decide to
take part, you will be asked to provide the best answer out of the response options, based on your
own understanding. The first set of questions will ask you to rate the level of preparedness recent
law school graduates are at for a career as a litigator, based on their law school education alone.
The next set of questions will ask you to rate how prepared recently law school graduates are for
112

a career as a litigator based on law school education combined with experiential learning
opportunities (externship, internship, and clerkship). The next set of questions will ask for your
additional feedback regarding the preparedness of recent graduates for a career in litigation. The
final set of questions will ask you for non-identifying demographics questions, to better quantify
overall results.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team, and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used. All of the findings will be reported in the aggregate. No names will
ever be associated with the findings, and none of the data we collect will be shared with other
Participants, attorneys, or hiring managers.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Eliyah Fey Odusoga, MBA. at
odusoga@usc.edu, and/or +1.646.732.1234
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

113

Appendix C: Survey Protocol
For the participants:
Thank you for choosing to participate in this study. Please answer the following questions based
on your experience as a recent graduate and a hiring manager (or hiring personnel). To better
assist you, below are definitions to some key terms used in this survey
• Experiential Learning: Internships, externships, or clerkships taken during law school
tenure.
• Practice Ready: An individual that is equipped with the necessary skills needed to
practice law.
• Recent Law School Graduate(s): An individual who graduated from their specified law
school institution within the last 12-months
______________________________________________________________________________
Table C1
Survey Protocol
In this section, please rate how prepared recent law school graduates are for a career as a
litigator based on law school education alone (without having participated in internships,
externships, or clerkships)?
Question Question
type
Level of
measurement
Possible answers RQ Construct
The ability to
“think like a
lawyer”
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 1 Law school
education
The ability to
understand the
facts and
emotions
behind disputes
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 1 Law school
education
114

The ability to
uncover and
collect relevant
case facts
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 1 Law school
education
The ability to
explain
inconsistencies
and changing
positions as a
case proceeds
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 1 Law school
education
The ability to
defend their
client when
opposing
counsel seeks to
destroy the
client’s
credibility and
position
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 1 Law school
education
The ability to
file a case with
the courts on
their own
without
assistance
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 1 Law school
education
The ability to
perform the
steps of
litigation on
their own
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 1 Law school
education
The ability to
know what
“counts” to
benefit their
case
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 1 Law school
education
115

The ability to
know
courtroom
etiquette
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 1 Law school
education
The ability to
know how to
initiate a case
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 1 Law school
education
The ability to
complete legal
research
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 1 Law school
education
The ability to
know the
statutes of
limitation for
cases
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 1 Law school
education
The ability to
know court
procedures for
state cases
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 1 Law school
education
The ability to
know court
procedures for
federal cases
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 1 Law school
education
116

The ability to
know court
procedures for
appellate cases
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 1 Law school
education
The ability to
know how to
respond to
written
discovery
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 1 Law school
education
In this section, please rate how prepared recent law school graduates are for a career as a
litigator based on law school education combined with experiential learning
(internships/externships/clerkship)?
Question Question
type
Level of
measurement
Possible answers
RQ Construct
The ability to
“think like a
lawyer”
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 2 Experiential
learning
The ability to
understand the
facts and
emotions
behind disputes
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 2 Experiential
learning
The ability to
uncover and
collect relevant
case facts
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 2 Experiential
learning
117

The ability to
explain
inconsistencies
and changing
positions as a
case proceeds
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 2 Experiential
learning
The ability to
defend their
client when
opposing
counsel seeks to
destroy the
client’s
credibility and
position
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 2 Experiential
learning
The ability to
file a case with
the courts on
their own
without
assistance
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 2 Experiential
learning
The ability to
perform the
steps of
litigation on
their own
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 2 Experiential
learning
The ability to
know what
“counts” to
benefit their
case
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 2 Experiential
learning
The ability to
know
courtroom
etiquette
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 2 Experiential
learning
118

The ability to
know how to
initiate a case
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 2 Experiential
learning
The ability to
complete legal
research
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 2 Experiential
learning
The ability to
know the
statutes of
limitation for
cases
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 2 Experiential
learning
The ability to
know court
procedures for
state cases
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 2 Experiential
learning
The ability to
know court
procedures for
federal cases
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 2 Experiential
learning
The ability to
know court
procedures for
appellate cases
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
RQ 2 Experiential
learning
The ability to
know how to
Closed-
ended
Ordinal (5) - Experts
(4) - Self sufficient
RQ 2 Experiential
learning
119

respond to
written
discovery
(3) -
Conceptual/needs
guidance
(2) - Insufficient
(1) - None
In this next section, please select the answer that is most applicable to you.
Question Question
type
Level of
measurement
Possible answers
RQ Construct
What was the
rank of the law
school you
attended while
you were a
student?
Closed-
ended
1. Tier 1
2. Tier 2
3. Tier 3
4. Tier 4
5. Unranked
6. unknown
N/A Demographics
What is the size
of your current
firm?
Closed-
ended
1. Global (350 and
up
internationally)
2. Large (350 and
up)
3. Mid-Size (16-
350)
4. Small (15 or
less)
5. offices across
country)
N/A Demographics
120

Appendix D: Interview Questions Protocol

Introduction to the Interview:

Good afternoon! My name is Eliyah Fey Kabeya, and I will be conducting your interview this
afternoon. I want to start by saying thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview. I
appreciate the time that you have set aside to answer some of our questions. The interview
should talk about an hour.
Before we get started, I want to provide you with an overview of what we will be talking about
today and answer any questions you might have about your participation. The purpose of this
study is to better understand practice preparedness in recent law school graduates, by gaining
insight from hiring managers such as yourself. I will ask questions that will help me better assess
whether law school graduates are prepared for practice, and the benefits of experiential learning.
For the purpose of this study, the following will be defined as listed below:
• Experiential Learning: Internships, externships, or clerkships taking during law school
tenure.
• Practice Ready: An individual that is equipped with the necessary skills needed to
practice law.
• Recent Law School Graduate(s): An individual who graduated from their specified law
school institution within the last 12-months
Do you have any questions about the study or the purpose of today’s conversation?
I want to assure you that everything said here today is strictly confidential. All of the findings
will be reported in the aggregate. When I use an actual quote from a practitioner, I will indicate
that it is from a “Participant” or “Hiring Partner,” etc. No names or specific law firms will ever
be associated with the findings. I also want to assure you that none of the data I collect will be
121

shared with other Participants, attorneys, or hiring managers. Do you have any questions for
me?
If you have questions about your rights while taking part in this study, or you have concerns or
suggestions and you want to talk to someone other than the researchers about the study, please
call the USC Office for the Protection of Research Subjects at (213) 821-1154 or email
oprs@usc.edu. You can reference study number # - UP-21-00897.
The last couple of things that I would like to cover include the logistics of the interview process.
I have brought a recorder with me today so that I can accurately capture what you share. The
recorder helps me focus on our conversation and not on taking notes. If at any time you wish to
turn off the recorder you may request to make comments “off the record.” Your participation in
all aspects of data collection is completely voluntary. May I have your permission to record and
get started?

122

Table D1
Interview Protocol

Interview question RQ Construct
How prepared do you think recent law school graduates are to
practice litigation right out of law school?
RQ 1 Organizational
Challenges
How important, if at all, is experiential learning during law
school in preparing graduates to practice law as a litigator?
RQ 2 Experiential
Learning
What organizational challenges, if any, do you face when
hiring recent law school graduates?
RQ 3 Organizational
Challenges
How, if at all, does additional training for new hires impact
your business?
Probe: Can you tell me what this training entails within your
firm?
RQ 3 Organizational
Challenges
What drawbacks, if any, do you see in hiring recent
graduates?
Probe: Can you tell me more about X?
RQ 3 Organizational
Challenges
What are the benefits of hiring recent graduates?
Probe: Can you tell me more about X?
RQ 3 Organizational
Challenges
It what ways, if any, do you think law schools can improve
their curriculum?
RQ 1 and 2 Law School
Education
and
Experiential
Learning
What differences, if any, have you noticed in the level of
preparedness amongst recent graduates in the last 4 years?
RQ 1 and 2 Law School
Education
and
Experiential
Learning

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Effective practices for managing staff performance in higher education: an exploratory study

PDF

Social work faculty practices in writing instruction: an exploratory study

PDF

Management practices of social wealth funds: an exploratory study

PDF

Army field-grade officer decisive action (DA) skill development: an evaluation study

PDF

Managing cyberloafing in the undergraduate business school's classroom

PDF

Transformational leadership theory aligned-practices and social workers' well-being: an exploratory study of leadership practices in the context of stress and job burnout

PDF

Examining managerial and interpersonal skills delivery in MBA education: an evaluation study

PDF

Influences on the use of restorative practices in a United Kingdom junior school: an evaluation study

PDF

Impact of training on leader's ability to effectively lead during a crisis

PDF

Scaling online graduate programs: an exploratory study of insourcing versus outsourcing

PDF

Incorporating social and emotional learning in higher education: a promising practices based development of authentic leadership

PDF

Assessing mental health barriers faced by Air Force law enforcement veterans

PDF

Women in executive leadership: a study of the gender diversity gap

PDF

College and career readiness through independent study: an innovation study

PDF

Impressions of diversity: frontline fundraiser hiring in higher education

PDF

Increasing representation of Black male hip-hop educators in the community colleges in California

PDF

Graduate academic advisor training course

PDF

Influencing and motivating employee engagement: an exploratory study on employee engagement in organizational injury-prevention programs

PDF

A curriculum for higher education faculty to reimagine learning in a postpandemic world

PDF

Early to mid-career employee development: an exploratory study

Asset Metadata

Creator Odusoga, Oluwafeyikemi (author)

Core Title Practice ready curriculum in law school education: an exploratory study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-12

Publication Date 09/06/2022

Defense Date 08/30/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag American Bar Association,bar association,experiential learning,field placements,hiring managers,Law,law firms,law school,law school graduates,legal,legal education,OAI-PMH Harvest,preparedness

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Phillips, Jennifer (committee chair), Hogan, Milana (committee member), Seli, Helena (committee member)

Creator Email eliyahfeykabeya@gmail.com,odusoga@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111637626

Unique identifier UC111637626

Legacy Identifier etd-OdusogaOlu-11178

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Odusoga, Oluwafeyikemi

Type texts

Source 20220906-usctheses-batch-977 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu