David I. C. Thomson

David Thomson calls for a change in law school pedagogy in his Law School 2.0. His ideas about the changes in student behaviors and the march of technology require an updated version of the law school curriculum. Unfortunately, he fails to address a few key issues, and so his book-length argument is much less persuasive than it could be.

Thomson starts off one of his early chapters by describing the Millennial Generation. This cohort has always known about technology, and he suggests that this generation values collaborative work and learning. While the Millennials will certainly be the source of the majority of our law students over the next decade, law schools will also admit students from other generations -- like from my own "Generation X" or even Baby Boomers. Members of these generations may not have the technological skills Thomson calls for. Nor does Thomson ever consider the amount of training necessary for these types of students (which may also include those Millennials on the wrong side of the "digital divide"). Even suggesting that these students could get assistance from the university computer center may no longer be sufficient in light of the increasing trend of stand-alone law schools.

Perhaps the best chapter in the book, "The Promise of Technology" gives concrete examples in using technology in a law school setting. Thomson describes student response systems (well known as "clickers"), wikis, blogs, electronic filing, and a specialized piece of litigation software. Although the examples given are short, they show how helpful technology can be in certain areas. (Oddly, Thomson does not provide any citation to his submitted law review article which gives much more depth in the discussion of the litigation software.) But with very few exceptions, Thomson fails to connect this with the practice of law -- why bother learning these programs if they aren't used in the firms that hire our students? If the answer is that the students will bring their knowledge and these tools to the firms, then that brings up many more questions. How is client confidentiality protected on a blog or a wiki? What implications are there when a "Chinese wall" must be created in a firm to protect against a conflict of interest? Law schools cannot ignore the practical and ethical concerns these programs may have in practice, which demands greater resources on implementing technologies.

One clear disappointment was Thomson's complete glossing over of the costs involved. Certainly, one can find free blogs and wikis -- but generally these are public spaces, which may not be appropriate for all projects. What would happen to the campus infrastructure if it was required to support wikis for every law school class offered? Thomson's other example of the electronic filing service must cost something -- are the students billed directly per filing, or is there a lab fee, or does the school pay for the service? Who pays for the extra staff required to support this technology? If Thomson truly wants to build converts to his new vision of academia, he's going to have to reach the ones who have the power to make changes -- and those are often the people who look at the budget.

Ultimately, the legal profession will decide what technologies it needs, but the process is admittedly ponderous (look, for example, at PACER, which, in a Lexis and Westlaw world, seems antique). Thomson has good ideas, but needs to remember technology is a tool. His dream of an advanced law school may be achievable -- perhaps even within the next decade -- but a better case needs to be made. A second edition that answers the questions posited above would change the text from being a vision to a blueprint for change.

[This was a complimentary copy sent by the publisher.]… (meer)