将来の弁護士は法律を学ぶべきか？ SumptionとVirgoの討論

[0:00] It's a great pleasure to see so many of you at this debate today. I gather there are quite Pupils from the local sixth form colleges, a special welcome to them. We're delighted that they've come. Can I just ask out of interest how many people here are law undergraduates? So you've all come to hear Lord Sumption tell you why you're wasting your time, is that right? The debate, as you know, is those who wish to practice law should not study law at universities. Thank you. Uh-- We have two outstanding speakers.

[0:33] Lord Sumption will begin, you have a handout which tells you a little bit. about him. What you may not know is that I think he's one of the five or six judges who have ever gone direct to the Supreme Court without sitting in one of the inferior courts firsts, And the last such judge was Lord Reid. He also has written outstanding. books on history and in particular on the Hundred Years War. One of the titles I think was Trial by Battle and the second was Trial by Fire. I'm not quite sure that's what they do in the Supreme Court. I hope it's a bit more sophisticated, the trial process there.

[1:08] that he will speak for between 15 and 20 minutes, And then we will hear from Professor Virgo. And then we will have questions, and they will each sum up very briefly at the end, and then we will take a vote. But out of interest, we will take just a very rough and ready vote at the moment. without hearing anything at all, just put your hands up. believe that those who wish to practice law should not study law at universities. How many think they should? And how many don't think?

[1:46] All right, well, we'll start with Lord Sumption. Thank you very much. Thank you. Well... as we have just demonstrated. For many of you here tonight, Whatever view emerges from this debate is going to be too late. Thank you. Some of you, of course, will be reading the part one. Some of you are at school. but I suspect that quite a lot of you have already made up your mind and are committed to reading law. This is after all the law faculty.

[2:24] So one might ask, "What am I doing here?" turning up on a cold February evening. in order to address 300 people of some intelligence. on the proposition that they've all made a terrible mistake, which they can now do nothing about. Professor Virgo of course was responsible for designing this evening's debate and he awarded the cushy option to himself. He is going to tell you that you have all... being wise, noble, and sage enough to make the right policy choice at an early stage and you would be less than human if you were not at least initially to agree with him.

[3:05] The problem, of course, about debates like this one is that they simplify issues and they polarize opinion. The question before you tonight only admits of two answers. One is yes, the other is no. Of course, in real life, the answer is usually neither yes or no. but it all depends. that that's not an answer which you have an option of giving at the end of this evening. That applies, of course, with special force, to the question whether one should If one intends to be a practitioner, read law at university.

[3:45] In current conditions, Anybody who does not read law at university and intends to practice will of course take a year longer to qualify than his contemporaries who did read law. at a time when there is virtually no public financial support. available for obtaining professional qualifications Most of you who just take that course will have to borrow on top of what you have already borrowed in order to get through university in the first place.

[4:16] Now, I don't, for one moment, underestimate... the difficulties. that that puts people in. and choosing to read law. that if you want to practice it later or choosing not to read law, if you want to practice it later, is a decision that requires some courage, and I make no bones about that at all. So the first point that I want to make to you at you this evening. is that you should approach a question like this, but not as a future practitioner but, so to speak, as a present philosopher.

[4:51] you should also, I suggest, approach it with at least an element of idealism. The question for you ought not to be Now, what is the answer that suits me? The question should be, What is the answer that would suit a civilized world? the sort of world in which I would actually like to live. a world perhaps in which student choices were not constrained in quite the same way by the practices of this particular profession. or by financial constraints arising from the limitation of the grants budget.

[5:26] Now this is not, however, a pointless exercise. Actually, the world has a way of catching up. with its ideals. but only on condition that it's prepared to acknowledge those ideals in the first place. Now, may I say first of all that I am not suggesting that law is a bad subject to read at university. What I am saying is that it's better to read something else. you should not, in other words, read it as a first degree.

[5:56] Now, I readily accept that that reading law at university does have some advantages and that they may well be compelling advantages to those who do not intend to spend the rest of their life practising it. In most English, universities Law is taught in a way that is interesting and extremely skillful. And as a background, to the broader disciplines of life. law is valuable in that it conveys something to those who don't intend to practice it of the intellectual method of law, as well as a basic set of legal principles.

[6:34] by which important parts of our society is organized. There are, however, in my view, two reasons why law That is the wrong choice of degree for those who intend to practice it. One. is that it is bad, I would suggest, for one's personal development to lose the opportunity to study another subject before throwing yourself into the disciplines of professional practice it is personally impoverishing. The other reason is that it is bad for one's professional development because the study of law is not the best preparation for professional legal practice.

[7:17] Now let me say something about the first of those points first. Um. The great intellectual virtues, I would suggest, whatever subject you study, Our curiosity-- and imagination. And these two attributes of the human mind uh at their freshest and at their sharpest, and most elastic. between let's say the ages of 15 and 25 before the pedestrian limitations of earning one's living I set in.

[7:48] Some legal practitioners are very good at escaping these limitations, but in my experience most of them aren't. There are obvious reasons. of this. The law. is a priestly craft. Intellectually it is a relatively enclosed world. For a practitioner, advising clients or for that matter addressing judges, except perhaps at the most senior levels of professional practice, the space allowed for speculation is actually very limited.

[8:24] It depends. the study of law on a finite range of source material Much of that source material is of course devised by other lawyers, viz. judges, Much of it is statutory. and therefore a given, not suitable for amending at any rate by its students. and it also depends on a particular way of thinking, which is not shared by most of the population at large. socially too, I find that law is practised in a relatively closed world.

[9:00] The reason is simply... the organization and the pressures of professional life. Criminal practitioners do see plenty of unconventional people. although thieves are actually not quite as varied as you might think they are. quite limited way of picking pockets. Legal practice. involves long hours. Many of them spent in highly congenial company, but generally, in the company of people very much like yourself.

[9:31] And like medical practitioners, It is actually quite remarkable how often lawyers marry each other. The law is... a wonderful profession. in many ways, but it is a profession whose practitioners do need, perhaps more than other groups, a window on the outside world. In this debate, a great deal is bound to depend on what view you take in general terms about the proper function of a university education.

[10:02] If you regard your time at university as purely a vocational preparation for earning your living later. with some quite good social life thrown in. then it's perfectly sensible in that situation for you to read law even if you intend to practice later. If, like the present government, that you think that universities exist in order to maximize the growth of the gross national product, and for virtually no other purpose at all, then you will probably end up taking the same view.

[10:37] For my part, I reject both of these propositions. However, economic planners... may view my function in the universe, I don't regard myself as a mere factor of production, and I don't imagine that anyone here does either. I think that the function of a university is to equip people, to get the greatest possible intellectual satisfaction out of not just work but life in general. I think that its contribution to what we do with our lives at weekends and after whatever time of night we get home, is at least as important as its contribution to our income.

[11:18] And I would suggest that a life in which one has been mainly concerned with the same subject from the age of 18 to the age of 65, because it is a good way of earning a living, is a seriously impoverished life by comparison with quite a lot of alternatives. If you are not going to practice law, then reading it as an undergraduate can be a mind-broadening experience. And the same is true...

[11:49] The same is not, in fact, true if... the degree is simply going to be the prelude to more of roughly the same thing over a period of some 40 years. If you are going to read law, then the opportunity to use the most intellectually formative practice law the opportunity to use the most intellectually formative period of your life. studying languages, literature, Philosophy, theology or history or whatever, is an opportunity that ought not to be missed.

[12:24] The problem is that a single life is not long enough. for all the things that one might be curious about in the course of living it. Unfortunately, a single life That is all that we have. We therefore need a large measure of vicarious experience as well as personal experience And we are not going to get a great deal of that out of the study of law. Law is a very poor way Or-- vicariously experiencing anything Whereas the other subjects that I have mentioned and quite a few other subjects that I haven't mentioned are in fact wonderful funds of vicarious experience.

[13:06] Benjamin Disraeli is supposed to have said in the House of Commons, We are here for fun. And what I am trying to tell you is having seen a lot of lawyers in my time I think that the ones who did something else at university have more fun. Now on that note, I want to turn to my second point. which is that reading law is not actually the best preparation for practicing it. I would accept... that there are some advantages in a university degree in law which no other kind of legal education is going to supply.

[13:42] In particular... A university degree ought to equip students with an overall view of the broad field of legal principle by comparison, Most professional training courses have a tendency to treat law as a series of subject-specific, more or less self-contained islands. I think that practitioners too are far too inclined to look at legal problems too narrowly without regard to any general legal principles, principles which they may well find in a subject area that is not within their own speciality.

[14:22] Now-- Thank you. The problem about this is that the reason why lawyers behave that way is not I think that the way that they studied law at university or in professional courses It's a problem. which is associated with the increasing professional specialization which has been characteristic of both branches of the legal profession for quite a number of years. And I'm afraid that it's a tendency which lawyers succumb to regardless of how or where they were trained as lawyers. The truth is, that whether you had a university education or a purely professional one in law, You actually learn most of your law and almost all of your judgment by practicing on the public.

[15:07] My experience is that non-law graduates are just as good or bad as the case may be, at thinking broadly about legal problems as law graduates are, Everything depends on the intellectual ability of the particular practitioner in question. Now as a general proposition, The first requirement for any intellectually demanding profession, whether law or something else, is a clear and logical mind a generous measure of vicarious experience and in addition I think the ability to string a coherent thought together whether orally or in writing.

[15:51] Now, in principle, These are qualities that can be acquired by studying any intellectually demanding discipline. And that applies as much to those who intend to be lawyers as to those who intend to practice law. in the other skill. In the end, intellectual ability and imagination matter a great deal more than a practitioner's specialized intellectual knowledge. John Paul Getty the famously laconic American oil billionaire.

[16:24] was once asked why it was that he employed so many classicists in his business. His answer was, They sell more oil. Now, one only has to look at the remarkable number of outstanding professional lawyers who did not read law in order to see that Getty's dictum has a far broader application than just the oil industry. In the United States, they have never had law available as a first degree.

[16:56] yet the United States seems to have produced some really quite interesting lawyers over the two centuries of its existence. In England, Probably the commonest training for lawyers until relatively recently was in fact classics. and a list of the greatest English judges would, just over the past century, would, I think, be revealing. Arguably, the greatest English judges of the century we have just had were Lord Denning, who read mathematics at university, and Lord Bingham, who read history.

[17:31] Now, they are in very good company. Lord Wright, Lord Atkin, and Lord Wilberforce, all read classics. nor diploq red chemistry. Lord Mackay read mathematics and physics. The current Vice President of the Supreme Court, Lord Hope, read classics. And the current president of the court, Lord Neuberger, red chemistry. before becoming a banker and only as a last resort turning to law. Indeed, he recently shocked an audience of German lawyers, famously obsessed by formal academic qualifications, by saying that he had actually found it quite easy to move from a more rigorous to a less rigorous discipline. The real problem was moving in the opposite direction.

[18:19] Now, if you look at the well-known names, among current practitioners the ones that one sees regularly in the newspaper reports, Michael Beloff, Michael Mansfield, Dinah Rose, all studied history at university. I hope that this course catalog ought to persuade at least quite a lot of you that you can have a reasonably satisfactory legal career without thinking seriously about law until after you leave university. Now, I don't think that this is actually an accident. There are quite a number of reasons why one would expect those with degrees in subjects other than law.

[18:56] to turn out to be rather good professional practitioners. Let me mention just a few. The first is, that's What you discover when you start practicing law is that there is surprisingly little law in it. Of course, you do need a good grasp of the basics. But that's relatively easy to obtain. Much the most challenging thing about the practice of law is understanding and analyzing what are often quite complicated facts, massive documentary files, and that odd combination of memory and prejudice which accounts for the way that human beings behave in the witness box.

[19:37] A remarkably high proportion of cases that come before the courts, including the Supreme Court, are ostensibly about law. but actually about the correct analysis and classification of the facts. The truth is, although I hesitate to say this in present company, that law is dead easy. Most of it is common sense with knobs on. What is difficult are the facts. Once you have correctly understood those, and stripped away the 95% of the facts that don't matter at all, the legal solution is almost always obvious.

[20:16] Now that's one reason why the prime requirements for a successful lawyer an outstanding ability to understand facts, often in relatively arcane areas of human The number one qualification for doing this is therefore to have the largest possible personal fund of experience most of which will in the nature of things be vicarious. A law degree is not, as I have said, the best way of getting vicarious experience.

[20:48] degree courses which require a serious analysis of facts and evidence are likely to be a great deal more useful. and they include most of the obvious analytical subjects like sciences and mathematics, or they include subjects like classics, history, English or foreign language which provide the requisite vicarious experience. Tom Bingham... was not only a historian at university, but pursued his interest in serious scholarly history throughout his life.

[21:23] And this fact I think. infused many of his greatest judgments with the humanity and a capacity for observation of the world, which is a large part of what made him a great judge and which he would not have obtained by studying law at university. he would have had to do something else to acquire those qualities. Now, these are qualities. that are just as valuable for practitioners as they are for judges like Tom Bingham. especially if they intend to practice as advocates.

[21:55] The English legal system, is one of the most demanding in the world. in terms of the sheer articulate use of language. English narrative judgments have a literary quality. which is entirely lacking from the judicial systems of the civil law or from the Court of Justice of the EU, or the European Court of Human Rights, which are couched in that special robotic brand of Dalek speak that we all know so well. Look. Oral advocacy has a uniquely significant place in the English legal system and in those that are modeled on it.

[22:33] a degree course in law. is no more likely to improve your command of language than any other humanities degree. and very probably less likely to do so Now, to some extent, of course, especially in Cambridge, you can eat your cake and have it by doing a combined degree. I personally doubt... whether many combined degrees will give you the degree of professional or profound understanding of either of the two subjects that you would get by studying just one of them on its own, although some combined degrees clearly do. The problem about switching half time after the part one tripos at Cambridge is that in practice, if you're going to qualify in law, you will usually have to do a fourth year and therefore it will take you just as long as it would have done to do a three-year course in something else and then go and do the common professional examination.

[23:31] It's also, of course, true that even those who have read law throughout their lives can catch up later. They can read outside subjects in their spare time. They can learn the foreign languages that they failed to learn at university. they can make themselves into universal men or women later. in theory. It's surprising how few people actually do it under the pressures of modern professional life. So the real question to my mind is why just catch up when you can have a serious intellectual grounding in a mind broadening subject that you will not spend your next 40 years studying.

[24:09] Why just catch up? when you can study it in the stimulating environment of a great university, surrounded by gifted contemporaries pursuing very similar interests. It's an opportunity that will never recur again. So don't. Lose the chance now. Thank you. Well, we now have Professor Virgo, who's known to most of you.

[24:45] who he has not known. He is an expert especially in criminal law and equity, an excellent teacher. And he's now going to tell you why he's not wasting his life. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Graham Virgo. and I read law at university. I actually read law at this university. I then became a barrister.

[25:17] and then I came back to teach law at this university. I'm going to go ahead and I want to start, first of all, by thanking Lord Sumption for coming here and facing the crowds here. I realise it's not easy and particularly having regard to the show of hands at the start, particularly those sitting nearer the back in this room, it may be like getting turkeys to vote in favour of Christmas. But Lord Sumpshon has raised a very serious serious issue.

[25:52] What we do in law schools and why we do it must always be kept under review. Thank you. It needs to be kept under review nationally as it is at the moment. and also locally as well. At the moment in Cambridge, this law school is reviewing everything we do in the law syllabus to make sure that we are preparing our law students properly For, for those who wish to go. into the legal professions, for their future legal careers.

[26:27] I ought to emphasise right at the start what this debate is not about, bearing in mind the motion. First of all, it's not about whether you can or should study another subject at university, and then change to study law. We're not talking about whether it's appropriate to do a changeover conversion course within a university like Cambridge or the affiliate law degree. This debate is not about whether we should shift to postgraduate legal study.

[27:03] as in the United States or as in Australia. and it is not even about whether you get adequate preparation for legal practice by doing a one-year graduate diploma in law, the conversion course. although I am very happy to argue against that. as being adequate preparation for legal practice. This motion is simply saying that if you want to be a barrister or a solicitor in this country, then you should not study law at university.

[27:41] It will not help you. Lord Sumption last year wrote an article, and that has really prompted this debate today. and he has summarised in what he has just said some elements of that article. And in that article he emphasised that legal practice is not about law, but it is about the facts. It's about the ability to analyse the facts, and as we've just heard, you can get adequate preparation to analyse facts, from studying another subject at university.

[28:18] and that will enable you to analyze evidence or to develop pure logical thinking. In other words... An undergraduate degree in law is a waste of time for those who wish to enter into legal practice. And never mind those of you who've stayed on for postgraduate study during the LLM. You are really wasting your time. I have four key arguments I wish to emphasize.

[28:51] as to why I do not support this motion. The first is this argument that the law is not just about legal rules, but it's about facts. and evidence. We would never use this sort of argument about medics. We would never argue that a medic should just do a one-year conversion course, having studied whatever they like, and that one-year conversion course will be perfect. perfectly adequate preparation for them. If I go and see my GP with a headache, I would be rather concerned if my GP said, "Well, I didn't do that. Heads weren't part of the core subject, but I can look it up."

[29:38] I know how to find the answer. But that essentially is the argument against studying law at university. You don't need to know the rules. you can look it up. It is all about the facts. It's all about the evidence. The analogy between a legal practitioner and a GP is a good one. Facts. are essential. but diagnosis is crucial a holistic approach needs to be adopted and to adopt a holistic approach you need understanding and an ability to make connections between all sorts of disparate areas of medical understanding or legal understanding.

[30:28] Now we might say the analogy with medicine is not good. Law isn't just a matter of life and death like medicine is. It's far less important. I would disagree. Law is incredibly important. The legal profession has an incredibly significant role in this country. And frankly, it demeans the law and it demeans the legal profession. to say the law is only.

[30:59] about assessing the evidence or the facts or even mainly about assessing the evidence and the facts. whether you are a judge, a barrister, or a solicitor, the law is much, much more than that. Thank you. My second argument relates to the legal profession itself. Lord Sumption's rejection of the relevance of law as an academic discipline plays to an unfortunate stereotype, identified by the author Jane Gardham in her brilliant book Old Filth.

[31:39] about an old barrister who, as a child, was told... You'll be a lawyer. Magnificent money, sense of logic, no imagination and no brains. But the legal profession of which legal academics form part... is much more than that. It is a learned profession. I A great judge once said, The legal profession has from times long past been termed a learned profession, and rightly so.

[32:16] For no man, and I will add, or woman, can properly practice or apply the law who is not learned in that field of law with which he is concerned. He must have more than an aptitude and more than a skill. he must be learned in a sense importing true scholarship. That is right. Legal scholarship is legitimate scholarship. The law is a subject worthy of study.

[32:50] and involves rigorous thought. Despite what Lord Sumption has just said, and I know this is a very cheap swipe, but Lord Sumption read history at Oxford, and maybe he was describing law at Oxford, and certainly not here. Because actually, legal, and I know that was a cheap swipe, but legal study requires...

[33:20] imagination, creativity and deep learning. lawyers constitute part of a learned profession and they are more learned if they have studied law first. My third argument is something that Lord Sumption touched on and acknowledged It is the access question. If we actually move to a system where you are forbidden from studying law at university, if you wish to become a practicing lawyer, that will have profound financial consequences.

[33:59] It will require additional study additional expense. And at a time when within universities and the legal profession as well, we are increasingly concerned about about issues of access and diversity. That is a very significant argument. Thank you. My fourth argument is... what Lord Sumption in his article called general culture.

[34:31] The assumption of Lord Sumption is that those entering the legal profession lack an appreciation of general culture. And that studying law at university cannot help them acquire that understanding of what he calls general culture. But how does the study of classics or languages work? mats, or even history bridge the gap. True, it provides an understanding, an ability to acquire knowledge relating to an aspect of general culture but only an aspect of it. It doesn't cover all aspects of general culture.

[35:18] And for those of us who study law, and who teach law... there are two particular arguments to emphasise. First, We do culture still, We just happen to do it in our spare time. We do study languages. We do study literature. We do study history. We just don't necessarily do it as part of our legal studies, although of course many of us do when you're studying law, you are engaging.

[35:53] with history. and philosophy. and languages and all sorts of disparate aspects of general culture. The other point about general culture is that actually law is law. culture or at least it provides the mirror to understand culture. Lawrence Rosen in his book entitled conveniently enough law as culture said If one sees law as exclusively concerned with the rules, that regulate disputes.

[36:32] rather than as a realm in which a society and its members envision themselves and their connections To one another... then we will fail to understand how our world is composed. the law actually enables you to understand a culture. For those of us who study comparative law, the law provides a window to understand a foreign culture.

[37:02] The law is in fact about facts. It's about stories. And it's about disputes. But in analysing those stories and providing solutions to those disputes, we can better understand culture. So finally... Why should you actually study law at university? The answer is simple. For those who wish to become practicing lawyers, and of course not everybody who studies law does, it makes you a better practicing lawyer. Now why?

[37:40] Well, first, when you study law at university, you acquire legal knowledge. But that's the least important part of studying law at a university the law changes And it can always be looked up in a book or on the web. at least if you know where to look, and how to find it, and how to understand it when you found it. But the study of law is about so much more than that. It's about legal reasoning.

[38:11] Legal reasoning does not come naturally to most people. It requires careful training, and the ability to be able to interpret and analyse and studying law at university enables that to occur. Legal understanding is a crucial part of legal study. That requires breadth and depth. It requires an engagement with other subjects. Law is not an island in a stream, it interacts.

[38:45] with economics. with politics. with philosophy. All of us who study law, all of us who teach law, engage with those other disciplines. Law is about legal criticism. Practicing lawyers need to know what is wrong with the law. so that they can predict legal change and they can participate in it as well. And finally, the study of law is about legal discipline.

[39:18] The ability to engage with big questions in a logical way. to assess the evidence and to draw rational conclusions. This week, I have been teaching law students in a variety of different subjects. And in those subjects we've been examining issues that require the student to have legal knowledge, to develop legal reasoning, understanding ethics.

[39:48] criticism and essentially develop legal discipline. All sorts of disparate legal issues require those different techniques. and attributes to be applied to them. So finally... Why did I... All those years ago... decide to study law. When I was in the sixth form, I asked all sorts of big questions. But probably the biggest question, a question which I have often asked ever since, is What about law?

[40:29] Why not study law at university? I wanted to understand. I wanted to change. I wanted to defend. And I wanted a subject with real intellectual discipline. And I got that. But... And Lord Sumption, I think, has made an important point that law schools are all around the country need to be aware of. Something we sometimes forget is that the teaching of law And the study of law might sometimes be regarded as rather dry.

[41:10] It is not perceived, as I think Lord Sumption said, it's not perceived as a fun subject. How wrong can Lord Sumption be? It is a fun subject. there is real excitement and enthusiasm In the study of law. Now, As the lead character said in the greatest film ever made about the law, the greatest film, and my knowledge of this film shows that I certainly have a very good understanding of general culture. The lead character said...

[41:52] A very wise professor... Once quoted Aristotle. The law is reason free from passion. Well, no offence to Aristotle, But I have come to find that passion is a key ingredient to the study and practice of law and of life. How true that is. It's that sense of passion that led me to study law, to practice law, to research and write about law, and that passion is at the heart of the legal profession, and if it's missing, it should be there and it's important that all of us ensure that that passion is there Law schools are not perfect.

[42:42] We in law schools need to think carefully about what we are doing and why we are doing it. But in thinking about that, there is only one conclusion, which is that What's the study of law at university? is not the only preparation to become a legal practitioner. It is the best preparation. Thank you. No kicking, no-- nothing below the belt, no head butting or anything like that. But cheap drives are permitted.

[43:36] That's a... Now. Time for you to show some passion that we're told you all have. and to ask questions. of either of the speakers. Who's going to go first? Bye. Thank you. Come on, somebody will-- yes. Do you think that Lord Sumption would have been a better lawyer if he had had a law degree? . Your assumption is an exceptional lawyer.

[44:10] Without doubt. And his career makes that absolutely remarkable. Clear. Um. I am sure Lord Sumption would have found it easier to establish himself in the legal profession if he had read law. but my argument is certainly not an argument that you should always study law and can only study law if you want to become a legal practitioner. Lord Sumption gave us some examples of great judges, very great judges, who did not study law at university.

[44:47] I did not do the same with another list of judges who did study law at university, from the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, because my list would be Such a long list. I didn't have enough time for it. The answer might be, not if he'd read Lord Oxford. But I call that a cheap jive. I will answer. Thank you. Yes. Sorry. actually So, I didn't.

[45:24] We'll have books. laughter I, of course, want to say-- this place I-- plan, okay. one year. Awesome. law. As the president. Yeah. That's a normal rule. Only the blind. Excuse me.

[45:56] Thank you. Yeah. I'll be back. board's options I Thank you. There's a lot to say. All right. Some other sub-people I'm a freshman. then followed up proper Back to those. No. have to Not that. And love. You want to say that in the opening? Amen. They look quite good.

[46:31] something. Thank you. Was that... How often? Thank you. That's it. that. My second point is... Why is it? Thank you. Does anyone have any questions? He doesn't pass. I'm fine. No. That means Come. That was it. Of course. I don't know. your actions. Thank you.

[47:06] Thank you. Um. or anthropologists write books. my thoughts So. Get a list. told you that to me. law is unimportant. Thanks. on it all. Thank you. - - Thank you. No, I meant-- Yes. I certainly was not suggesting that there is not value if you have done an undergraduate degree in a subject other than law, that there is any problem about then reading law at a university. I think that's a very valuable exercise. What I would HURT.

[47:51] is the suggestion that you actually need to do that in order to be a successful practitioner. The fact is that uh until really quite recently. I mean, first of all, I entirely agree with what Graham Virgo says about the highly unsatisfactory nature of most professional training courses, All I can say is that they were once very, very much worse. I -- acquired my first acquaintance with law. by going to Gibson and Welder's crammers and I was sent by correspondence course.

[48:25] little blue books Every fortnight or so, I would that sent back the that the essay is to some nameless person who would send them back with mucks. Now, I'm not going to suggest that that is a way of acquiring a satisfactory legal knowledge. but it wasn't what I was suggesting. The fact is that I learnt 100% of my law by practising. and I learned it pretty quickly. And that's not an unusual experience. Because the truth of the matter is, And it's one of the differences between medicines and law.

[49:01] Doctors, of course, cannot mug up their necessary medical science and the art of diagnosis in the half hour before a consultation. But I have to tell you that from long experience, that that is what I have spent my entire life as a lawyer doing. And so has every single practitioner with any experience or success to his name. Thank you. But one more question. With any questions, all yes.

[49:33] Sorry, this here, this here, yes. Um... about the point about-- I don't be nuts The Lord does. study or does actually. Uh-- uh, Right in the left. I'd want them. learn a whole lot about it. I know. and I'd argue that the same Bye. Um. the law is a reflection of how human beings house I don't.

[50:08] Um. - uh, that a lot of our folks to respond to this. Thank you. Thank you. I agree that you learn Uh-huh. something, possibly even a lot, about the society from the kind of aspects of its existence that a lawyer studies. I don't agree that there are not, in fact, better ways of doing it.

[50:39] And I think that the habit of legal thinking. which legal training and I'm not only talking about universities here, inculcate is one which tends to inhibit curiosity. and produces an attitude to the outside world that is not consistent with the view you've just expressed. I will tell you a story that... uh represents a very extreme example I was for a number of years a history fellow at Magdalen College, Oxford.

[51:10] One of the most distinguished lawyers at Magdalen was John Morris, the editor of Dicey and Morris on the conflict of laws. My clearest recollection of John Morris is of entering lunchroom one day It was the day after. Ordon had been buried. at his country house in Austria at Kirchstetten, and I entered the room just in time to hear him saying, to the rapt assembly of lawyers with whom he always had lunch, *laughter* I've never been to Kirchstetten.

[51:44] and I've never had the slightest desire to go which I do now so that I can dance on Auden's grave. Right, well each speaker can now have two minutes just to-- respond and sum up. And Graham, if you go first. Thank you. Um. I'm first going to say, because many of you will not know, that one of the speakers who commented was Professor Sir Roy Good.

[52:21] who are A number of you will have read his books. I'm very sorry for what I said about Oxford. I did myself study there for one year as well. I simply want to emphasize what the motion is The motion is saying that If you want to go into legal practice You must not study law. It is law. a waste of time.

[52:53] Of course you can study other subjects. of course you can learn a great deal from those other subjects. But really what I wanted to say before, and I want to emphasise again, is that despite all the misconceptions about the study of law at university. And there are many misconceptions. It is a subject that is deeply It's intellectual. It is learn it.

[53:25] The law profession is a learned profession and the best way to go into that profession is with a good grounding in legal education, which you can only acquire by rigorous legal study. Thank you. Thank you. Well, I will make-- just three points. The first is: I did not say. And it is not... part of my argument.

[53:57] that reading law at university is a waste of time. Nor do I think so. Now, what I have suggested is that there are other better and more mind enlarging ways of acquiring the kind of grasp of reasoning which a lawyer requires. The second point is this. when I said, in the course of my opening observations, that the law is an enclosed world I could not have expected to find that view.

[54:29] so rapidly confirmed as it was when Graham Virgo was delivering his own arguments. The idea-- that law is supremely important, more important than any other subject that it is absolutely vital to an understanding of the world All of these are sentiments that you often hear uttered. but only by lawyers. It's unique in that respect. There are people who have never studied philosophy, who admire philosophers.

[55:05] There are people who've never studied history but admire historians. Lawyers are a unique breed in that they have a propensity, which is really quite remarkable, for acting as their own cheerleaders. The third point is simply this. that anybody who is going to suggest that without the kind of legal scholarship that is best acquired at universities, You cannot... be a successful practitioner or an outstanding judge is first of all saying that there were no outstanding judges in England before the end of the 19th century when the first generation of judges.

[55:46] went to the bench. who had studied law in universities which has an organized degree has really only existed since the middle of the 19th century. He also has the heavy burden of explaining why it is that so many not only distinguished lawyers but of our most distinguished lawyers have in fact managed to master legal scholarship without having a law degree. I don't deny the value of legal scholarship.

[56:17] I do deny. that going to learn it at university is the only way of acquiring it. Well I hope you agree, a very stimulating debate. Now you get your chance to confirm your prejudices again, if that's okay. You can, of course, vote compatibly with... Lord. assumptions, views, even if you're reading law, as long as you undertake now not to practise in the future.

[56:50] Because that's consistent, I think, with his position. But all those who, I can't remember what the motion was, let me have a look. All those who think that those who wish to practice law should not study law at university. Put your hands up. Okay. all those who think otherwise. Put your hands up. Thank you. So I think it's victory for the home team, but perhaps that was to be expected. Thank you. change their minds we need to know which way how many people felt they changed their minds in the course of this.

[57:30] Very good. Well, there we are. That's open-minded people we have here. Thanks very much for coming. Very good. Thank you. as Patrick Elias Lord Sumption and Graham Virgo for this evening. And I would like to thank all of you for coming and making this the occasion it has been. It's been a great evening for us and the faculty.

[58:05] And I would encourage you, please, can. There's a reception on two of the floors outside. So do stay and talk. We've got a great mix sixth formers through to very senior practitioners and legal academics as well. So-- it would be just Great. to continue this discussion for a while longer. Thank you.