READING/THINKING SKILLS OF LAWYERS, LAW PROFESSORS, AND LAW STUDENTS

The study formulated an array of legal thinking skills drawn from the literature, interviews with professors and practitioners, and pilot studies in an attempt to focus on the thinking skills necessary for high level functioning in legal education and trial law.;A questionnaire was developed from the literature, interviews with professors and practitioners, as well as pilot studies. This was distributed to a sample of law students (N=107) and law professors (N=14) of the Rutgers Law School-Newark and lawyers and judges (N=34) of New Jersey.;The main findings were that the legal thinking skills that the respondents felt were most important for doing well in law school were essentially the same kind of skills considered least important for doing well in the practice of trial law.;For the most part, year of law school or experience teaching law or practicing law, sex, or race did not significantly affect the rating of the importance of the surveyed legal skills in law school or trial law. There was no indication that law students learn what is required of them to do well in law school once they enter law school. They enter law school with the same notion of what is required of them to do well in law school with which they graduate.;The study addressed questions involving rating the importance of the legal thinking skills for high level functioning in law school and trial law by lawyers, law professors, and law students. In addition comparisons of these thinking skills were made using year of law school or experience teaching law or experience practicing law, sex, and race as independent variables. Finally the skill array was categorized according to the Bloom taxonomy.;The major difference in the rating of the various skills was for what the skills would be used. The most important skills for doing well in law school were the same skills considered least important for doing well in trial law. Conversely, the skills rated as most important for doing well in trial law were the same skills considered least important for doing well in law school.;Some implications of the study may be that law schools have limited their scope too much by providing only excellent training for certain analytical skills, that is, training to think like a lawyer. Accordingly, the results may also indicate that there may be a need for establishing courses in the various areas of legal specialities with an emphasis on the skills required for the speciality as well as the substantive law of the speciality. This may indicate the need for more specialized law school training during the second and third year. Further significant areas of future research might explore: (1) cognitive style of law students and lawyers; (2) a comparison of the relationship between the ranking of law students with a high grade point average and those with a low grade point average of the importance of skills for doing well in law school with that of law professors; and (3) the development of what other skills should be emphasized in addition to the cognitive. For example, communication skills, advocacy, counseling and interviewing, and policymaking.