There are three types of (for lack of a better word) knowledge necessary to be a good transactional lawyer:

(1) substantive knowledge,

(2) practical skills (such as contract drafting and negotiation), and

(3) expertise (hard to describe, but for now let’s say stuff like problem-solving, counseling, and advocacy for real-world clients).

Most critics combine the last two categories under the phrase skills, but that is a mistake.

Law schools have a comparative advantage over law firms in teaching substantive knowledge (without a doubt), and in certain instances, practical skills. The comparative advantage when it comes to developing expertise resides (hands down) with law firms.

Law schools still have room for improvement in conveying substantive knowledge. Thus, rather than devoting already limited resources to areas where they lack the comparative advantage, law schools should seek to improve themselves in the area where they have the advantage. Attempts by law schools to increase the amount of exposure they give students to “real world” transactional practice in an effort to develop expertise is generally time that would be better spent focusing on the first two types of knowledge (substantive knowledge in particular). This is pretty much your opportunity cost argument. I think the focus on skills training can be (has been?) quite detrimental because it causes us to take our eye off the ball.

For a more detailed explanation of my argument, see my remarks from the AALS mid-year meeting, “What Law Schools Should Teach Future Transactional Lawyers: Perspectives from Practice” (July 5, 2009), available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1430087 (where I quote you extensively).

MAW