A lot of Public Defender types seem to be greatly emotionally invested in their work. People who leave PD offices to do defense work elsewhere are often criticized as selling out. Why? Does this not assume that everyone one dollar over the magical “poverty” line is adequately protected/defended?
Shouldn’t “To Serve and Protect” be a PD motto?
A lot of law professor types can’t seem to break free of the case method. Which, pedagogically speaking, serves a useful purpose for about 4 months of law school. Slavish devotion after the fact is just plain lazy.
Case in point – our clinic keeps saying they’re cutting our reading so we can focus on things like working for our clients, getting jobs, etc. However, I’m staring at an inch thick double-sided packet of fifth amendment and suppression readings. Instead of an either/or, cut/read approach, how about having us read the major cases, then giving us a table of squibs listing holding, salient facts, etc.? I mean if you can tell me “You know, I regret cutting X case since it stands for Y and has interesting facts regarding Z,” is it so much effort to just put that in handout form? Does anyone retain squib 7 of 12 five weeks later? Or do we have to search for and re-read it when the issue is raised or crosses our minds?
So why the blind investment in the method? Is the assumption just that students will buy secondary materials, pool their resources, not do the readings, etc.? Or is that not considered? Seeing stuff like this makes me question content as well as form.
OK, off to work on a memo and an essay.
Heartfelt congrats to the Detroit Tigers, and best wishes on celebratory recovery to R.Fanning and "The Cobra" (my 1L supervisor at the nearby PD)!