Why Is There a Gap Between Law School and Legal Practice?

Legal education lays down the principles and foundations of the law with the intention of familiarising students with the law in a multitude of contexts. Legal practice not only revolves around applying the knowledge obtained during studies to real-world scenarios, but potentially thinking outside the box to cater to a client’s needs.

When making the jump from legal education to legal practice, many have found that the skills taught in law school aren’t enough for the legal working world. During my first experience at a law firm, I also found this to be true. Despite having just graduated, I was out of my depth, with seemingly all the foundational knowledge I needed to begin a more concrete journey to qualification. What I learned quickly was that the education I was provided in foundational law school was only a shadow of the mountain of skills and knowledge I needed to acquire before qualification was possible. But the question here is why is there such a huge disparity? 

At university, there is a heavy focus on identifying the right area of the law, applying this correctly and coming to a conclusion, whereas, in practical settings such as negotiations, court proceedings and client management, one must think outside of the box. Whilst acquiring legal knowledge is undeniably important, applying this practically can seem like an entirely different ballpark. Life is complicated and unpredictable, which requires those who work in legal practice to not only approach their cases attentively but also creatively, as a ‘one size fits all’ approach is unlikely to be successful.

It doesn’t stop at understanding theory…

Universities and other institutions providing legal education focus on teaching legislation and the theoretical concepts behind their legal principles. This is not inherently wrong. Teaching students to look at legislation critically is integral to understanding difficult legal principles and concepts and should not be overlooked as it is an important part of legal education. Such skills are critical in development – especially considering how absorbing and understanding new legal concepts is a huge part of the process of becoming a qualified lawyer. 

Increased exposure to the business and administrative aspects of working in legal practice, such as those listed earlier, could help students realise the importance of using practical skills. This would undeniably soften the transition from studying law to working in a law firm. As suggested by trainee solicitor Grace Makungu in her article breaking down the ‘key differences between law school and legal practice’, this skill is only “one piece of the puzzle”. When it is time to apply the research and put learnt theory into practice, there lies the issue – not only is there a huge gap in the practical knowledge that one has, but when working on ongoing cases, there are many moving parts that may require solutions that cannot be taught in a lecture hall or seminar room. 

These moving parts differ dramatically when further split between transactional or litigation law. The expectations required of litigation lawyers in particular are not addressed in law school, especially as most law students do not have access to working with real clients, resulting in a failure to build professional interpersonal communication skills. 

Law Firms as Businesses

Further, law schools rarely mention, if at all, that law firms operate as business structures. In corporate law, acquiring clients, turning a profit and having an entrepreneurial mindset are huge driving forces behind an associates action’s. It’s the first real lesson I learnt coming out of my first experience at a law firm. In conversations with partners and senior associates, I would express frustration at how naive I felt for not considering the monetary aspect of the job – my comments were swiftly met with the same answer: ‘How were you supposed to know? They don’t teach this in university.’ 

Nicholas W. Allard expressed the same sentiment in his article ‘Law School Never Taught Me to Be an Entrepreneur’. In explaining the interconnectedness of law and business, Allard explains that law schools fail to (and cannot) teach entrepreneurship. He states that while there is not the expectation that graduates should know how to be business-minded, those who show signs that such a skillset aided their career growth. As a result, he argues that law schools should do more to give students access to learning from entrepreneurs about business and how it collides with the legal world. 

I agree. Law schools should make the effort to expose students to the commercial world and its effects on the legal sector, this may positively affect the quality of graduates who are looking to train in the legal profession by increasing commercial awareness. Not only will it allow students to more accurately determine if pursuing law is for them, but it will also better communicate what is demanded of the legal practitioner. 

Where there is no exposure to real-life experiences, it is difficult for the student to accumulate the knowledge needed to bridge the gap between law school and legal practice. Law schools must work to rectify this, after all, ‘the study of the law, profound, philosophical, beautiful as it is, is naught until action and endeavour are mingled with it’.