To Hell with Langdell!: [Commentary]

Abstract

Two decades ago, I took Professor Carrington's Civil Procedure course. It proved one of my most useful and interesting experiences in law school. I learned Civil Procedure and something about lawyering, often through the stories Professor Carrington told about practice. Among other reasons, I enjoyed Carrington's classes because I did not fear the Socratic method there. As I recall, he was no Kingsfield, Pilot Brown, or Cement Pants. Rather, Carrington often lectured. And though he did sometimes call on students, it was easy to avoid being questioned: one simply did not sit in one's assigned seat. As this tale may illustrate, I hate Langdell because of the association of his case method with the Socratic method. It almost seems unfair to saddle Langdell with the Socratic method because it makes him such a convenient whipping boy. But historically, the case method and Socratic dialogue have been partners. As Carrington says: Without classroom dialogue, the case method is a potential hero with no role to perform. As a law student, I thought I was alone in hating the Socratic method and in seeing law school as a jungle through which one proceeded warily, always anticipating a pouncing.' Though I never actually suffered a traumatic experience because of the Socratic method, I assumed I risked one daily. Even Professor Kingsfield's students in The Paper Chase seemed more comfortable with classroom dialogue. I thought there was something wrong with me because I lived in terror of a grilling. It turned out I had company. I felt a shock of recognition in my last year of law school when I happened on