Outside Counsel

Neal Katyal, who argued the winning side in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld says that the suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere should be tried pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. His arguments make sense, but I am embarrassed to admit that I know exactly nothing about the UCMJ. Even the idea of my law school offering a class in Military Law would have been laughable back then, and the notion of my taking such a class utterly absurd. We'd have called it "Kangaroo Law" or something, and have been disdainful. Indian Law seemed like a waste of time back then, and now it's a booming field. I thought International Law was ridiculous-- "Where do you argue International Law cases?" I remember quipping, "At the International Moot Court in The Hague?" I was, of course, wrong. I argue principles of international law all the time in our practice-- but I had to teach my self.

You know what I wish my law school had offered? Roman Law. It's the basis for most Western law, and a good way to get a handle on almost any Western legal concept even today. Besides, it would have been just plain interesting. We spend way, way too much time in law school approaching our Glamour Profession like a trade, and it diminishes us. To its credit, UB has always resisted this, but you won't find Roman Law there today, and I'm not so sure that there is even a comparative law course offered.

Of course, resources are limited at any law school, and there is passing the bar exam, which means that there are a number of core subjects that must be studied. An expert in Roman Law on the faculty might mean that there wouldn't be room for an IP person, or someone versed in UCC Article 3. When I was in law school Andy Spanogle wanted to teach International Business Transactions, but was pressed into teaching the UCC stuff because there wasn't anyone else to do it. I enjoyed Secured Transactions with him so much that I ended up taking several more classes from him-- but I never even knew he was interested in private international law until I met him again years later at a conference at George Washington University. He'd moved to GW because they let him teach what he was interested in-- and UB lost a terrific faculty member because they wouldn't, or couldn't, fit what he wanted to do into what it needed to do.

I've said more than once before that a lot of people become lawyers because it is the terminal liberal arts degree. A lot of people become lawyers because it seems like a good way to make a big pile of money. A lot of people in both of these catigories end up miserable, because neither of these reasons are good reasons to do this work-- and the work is too hard to enjoy unless you love doing it for its own sake. In general the American model for legal education impresses me as one that produces superior lawyers, but we really ought to let a little more intellectual curiosity into the process. We are not like B-School. We are a learned profession.