Thursday, April 12, 2012

Evidence of incompetence

Judge Primeaux relays the news that Ole Miss Law [EDIT: like MC Law as well] no longer requires its students to take the Evidence course.

I suppose one could debate whether to have any required courses in law school, but any sane list of requirements would have to include Evidence. I don't care what kind of law a student thinks he or she is going to practice - Evidence is too fundamental to omit.

If any of you happens to run into the new law dean, you might ask him what the heck his school thinks it's teaching. But more polite-like.

10 comments:

  1. Here's my two cents on this subject as a newly minted member of the Mississippi bar: What I have seen in my six or so months of practice has shocked me about the lawyers and judges who have no real concept of the rules/fundamentals of evidence. Evidence is a damn tough subject to master on paper, and one which is really only learned through practice. However, I have seen numerous attorneys who have practiced for decades routinely ignore major fundamentals, such as introducing medical and other business records without any thought of 803(6) or 902(4), and the judges haven't so much as blinked. My theory is that most of these trial judges and lawyers know that the quotidian practice of law will never be reviewed by a higher tribunal and it will not matter whether those records were ever actually properly in evidence. Perhaps this adds somewhat to why there is less focus on evidence in law schools. In my humble opinion, no matter what sort of law you practice, you are not a lawyer without a fundamental understanding--however imperfect it may be--of evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Having written briefs for 25 years, there is no proof whatsoever that the teaching of evidence has had any impact on the practice of law. I have a post conviction case right now where the only evidence that the defendant killed his wife was a beating he administered years earlier. Neither trial counsel nor appellate counsel mentioned MRE 404(b). Mind-boggling. I encounter stuff like that all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Okay Jane, but that goes for EVERY area of law ...!

    Requiring certain courses sends a message: "this is crucial to the effective and professional practice of law."

    Not requiring Evidence sends a message: "this is optional; you can skip this class and still be an effective and professional attorney."

    It's a difficult class to teach, but then, so is Civ Pro. Maybe that's not required either.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's all depressing. I just hope the percentage of incompetent doctors isn't the same as incompetent lawyers or we are all doomed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, I think we're doomed anyway, so far as that goes. But we may be doomed a little too soon!

    Med training has retained the old notion of apprenticeship, "residency." Arguably law training should be the same.

    ReplyDelete
  6. As a fairly recent Ole Miss law grad, I have to tell you that, outside of first year classes, the only required courses are legal profession and a paper class. It's been like this for at least 5 years and I suspect much longer. Virtually every student does take evidence and other fundamental classes if for no other reason than to pass the Bar. In effect, not too big of a deal.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ah, but Evidence was required when *I* was there, so any change is obviously for the worse!

    ReplyDelete
  8. To clarify ... neither Ole Miss nor MC Law require evidence to graduate.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've done nothing but litigation for 10 years, and I've been to trial around 6 times. I suspect this has something to do with the administration's decision.

    As the Boomers begin to retire, the Mississippi legal system will lose a tremendous amount of skill and knowledge when it comes to trying lawsuits (because, in true Boomer fashion, they aren't really worried about passing the skills they were taught, by the previous generation, on to the next generation [insert joke about viagra and/or narcissism]).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yah, but that doesn't entirely follow, Anon 3:28 - for instance, summary-judgment evidence has to be admissible.

    The most I ever learned about evidentiary rules was fighting off a Rule 56 motion in federal court.

    Concur completely re: the last generation to "grow up" trying cases every month, except I don't think they don't *care* about passing along their skills; they just don't get many trials any more in which to do so.

    ReplyDelete