This Article will examine whether the expansion of required LRW courses into the realm of transactional drafting is justifiable. Part II will assess the need for required transactional drafting instruction by showing, empirically, that many students lack a disposition towards litigation or have an affirmative inclination towards non-litigation work. This Part includes both a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the issue: It includes a survey of nearly one-thousand first-year law students nationwide and a set of questions and responses from a number of law students who self-identified as future transactional lawyers but who were members of traditional litigation-centric LRW courses. Part III will establish that, despite a significant demand for transactional drafting instruction, law schools' curricula include inadequate numbers of such courses. Drawing on this research, Part IV argues that law schools should expand their required LRW courses, not necessarily in the first-year, to include additional training for both the future transactional lawyer and the future litigator. This Part describes several models of required LRW courses that would facilitate a more holistic approach to legal writing by implementing transactional skills training.
Louis N. Schulze Jr.,
Transactional Law in the Required Legal Writing Curriculum: An Empirical Study of the Forgotten Future Business Lawyer,
55 Clev. St. L. Rev.
available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol55/iss1/5