Kill 1L

Abstract

Law school education has been extensively studied for decades, but changes have been modest. This Article makes the case that fundamental law school reform will not occur until we abolish the central pillar on which it rests—the current conception of the first year of law school, the “1L” experience. Many studies of law school curricula and pedagogy are sharply critical of the education offered, but they pull a punch when it comes to 1L. 

This Article proposes a new 1L curriculum that engages students in law as used by courts and policymakers while decreasing the demands placed on law students by the repetitive, inefficient legacy 1L curriculum. The proposal is supported by a compilation of data on 1L curricula at almost every U. S. law school together with an analysis of ABA-required law school statements of learning outcomes. The comparison reveals the gap between what is promised students for their legal education and what 1L delivers. The Article proposes an exemplar new 1L curriculum and identifies ways in which a reformed 1L curriculum would correct the misdirection in learning that occurs from the monoculture of reading excerpted appellate cases.

Keywords: law school, legal education, curriculum, first year, 1L, Langdell, Socratic, leg-reg