Langdell and harvard law school and bruce kimball

For class on 10/10 I have asked you to read excerpts from Bruce Kimball's meticulously-researched piece on Langdell's early teaching method at HLS during the 1870s and early 1880s. This article is important for a number of reason: (1) it presents the "consensus" approach to Langdell; (2) it questions that approach and advances a new one; (3) it does so on the basis of primary sources; (4) it places Langdell in the context of his time; and (5) it allows/encourages us to ask questions about the way we learn law and the method of case study, which still tends to dominate law school instruction today. This essay presents questions for consideration of the life and contribution of Landgell. I also refer you to two of my essays on L written in 2005 which set the context for the discussion.

Questions for Discussion

1. I would first like to set the historical context to understand L. America was re-orienting itself after the Civil War, and the "new world" of the 1870s required a new approach to education. I think the caesura in American society occasioned by the Civil War was as significant, if not more, than the break caused by the Great Depression and WWI from 1929-1945. A new spirit, thus, was "in the air" in the late 1860s (L took on the Deanship at HLS in early 1870). Two of the ways this spirit was manifest was in the developing notion of the professions and the importance of a "scientific" approach to knowledge. What is a profession and what do you need in order to have one? What does it mean to have a scientific approach to knowledge? What does a "scientist" do in approaching knowledge? What "equipment" does s/he need?

2. L settled on the casebook method as the way to teach law. Why? Read my essay on L here (under 7.) to understand what L was trying to do. What do I argue in that article? What do you think about the casebook method of learning law?

3. L is a polarizing figure in American legal education. Kimball gives many comments on how subsequent scholars have reacted to L. Which ones stood out to you? What is to explain the almost visceral negative reactions that L seems to have provoked? This is the second "generational" issue of disagreement in jurisprudential method between a teacher and student we have seen so far. What was the other?

4. Kimball challenges that negative reaction that many scholars have to L in his article. What will be his method by which he tries to undermine the dominant approach to L?

5. Historical scholars often "periodize" history. Give some examples of periodization in Western history. One key to Kimball's approach is to periodize the professional life of L at HLS. How does he so divide L's life? What is characteristic of each period?

6. K tries to argue that L develops his method during 1870-71. He speaks of an "intermediate" stage between the lecture method and casebook method that is captured, for him, in L's Partnership lectures of 1870. What does he mean by this? What does K argue is characteristic of the Contracts book of 1870?

7. Have any of you had the opportunity to work on a manuscript collection? In sect. III of the paper (p. 79) in the article, he quote Demos's reflection on what a scholar "sees" when s/he "holds" a document in hand: "Inevitably, a scholar who holds [the original document] in his hands sees more than the wrods on the page: sees the rough (but remarkably strong) qualities of the paper, the occasional blurriness of the ink, the clear and steady penmanship of the writer (clear and steady in spite of the horror)..." From the photocopies of L's books and notes in the article, can you see how this might be the case?

8. How would you characterize Kimball's "new" view of L, which he puts forth in his article?

9. In his conclusion (part VII), Kimball offers an explanation for why L might have appeared rigid, formal, hyper-orthodox, etc. by the time that many of his (later) critics were his students. What is that explanation?

2138