Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 01.pdf/27



HE much-debated question, whether the law school or the lawyer's office affords the better opportunity for legal training, may well be considered settled. Undoubtedly each offers advantages which the other does not possess. All lawyers concede that a short apprenticeship in the office of a practitioner is valuable; but a thorough knowledge of legal principles is essential to higher professional success, and this knowledge, which under all circumstances is difficult of acquisition, can rarely be attained except as the result of uninterrupted, systematic study, under competent guidance. For such training, the lawyer's office seldom affords an opportunity. That this is now the prevailing opinion among lawyers is shown by the growth of law schools in the United States, and the introduction in England of systematic instruction in the common law, both at the Universities and at the Inns of Court.

It is but a century since the first school for instruction in the common law was founded. The Harvard Law School, the oldest of all existing institutions devoted to such education, is scarcely seventy years old. Its age, the eminence and ability of its instructors and the excellence of its methods made it a potent factor in the struggle to establish the value of school training. Now that the battle has been won, it may be interesting to consider the condition of legal education at the time the Harvard Law School was founded, and the development of the school itself.