未来的律师应该学习法律吗？Sumption与Virgo的辩论
本页标题、字幕、摘要和阅读笔记为已保存的 AI 译文，可能有误。时间戳与来源一致，可展开查看原始字幕，并对照原视频核对。
Sumption勋爵与Virgo教授辩论未来律师是否应在大学学习法律，权衡知识广度与专业教育。
转录来源：Vidleaf上的自动语音识别（可能包含错误）。AI标点由Vidleaf添加；保留原始措辞和时间戳锚点。原始转录可在下方获取。
AI生成的摘要
Sumption勋爵与Graham Virgo教授辩论打算执业的人是否应在大学学习法律。Sumption主张另一个本科学位能带来知识广度，并强调理解复杂事实的重要性。Virgo为法律教育辩护，认为它是培养推理、批判和学科理解的方式，同时提出关于入学机会和额外学习成本的问题。观众提问既暴露了分歧，也显示了在专业培训方面的共识领域。本摘要呈现动议双方的观点，并附有链接段落以便考察其理由，而不是将任何一方立场视为已定的职业建议。
要点
- [5:39] Sumption主张，另一个本科学位能为未来律师提供宝贵的知识广度。
- [30:12] Virgo主张，法律实践需要对法律和事实分析有综合的理解。
- [34:05] 辩论考察了进入法律实践的途径如何影响入学机会、成本和多样性。
根据文字记录生成。请对照原始视频核查所链接的段落。简要说明和要点由 Vidleaf 于 2026-10-21 审核。
完整概述
本场辩论环节围绕“希望从事法律执业的人不应在大学学习法律”这一动议展开，以预投票开场，并介绍萨姆普申勋爵（Lord Sumption），指出他是少数直接进入最高法院的法官之一，而在他之前最后一位这样的法官是里德勋爵（Lord Reid）。萨姆普申勋爵主张，对于有意执业的人来说，法律是错误的第一个学位，他说，在好奇心和想象力最为鲜活的时候失去学习另一门学科的机会，会在个人层面上使人贫乏，而且法律并非执业的最佳准备；他把法律描述为一门祭司式的手艺和一个相对封闭的世界，争辩说执业中最难的部分是理解和分析复杂的事实，并引用约翰·保罗·盖蒂（John Paul Getty）关于古典学者卖出更多石油的说法以及汤姆·宾厄姆（Tom Bingham）的历史学术研究。格雷厄姆·维尔戈教授（Professor Graham Virgo）是剑桥法律毕业生、大律师和法学教师，他反对该动议，争辩说“执业关乎事实与分析而非法律规则”这一主张是有缺陷的，将法律与医学作比较，警告说贬低法律、称其主要是关于证据和事实，是在迎合一种不幸的刻板印象，并就额外学习和费用提出入学机会与多样性方面的担忧。他反驳法律学习不能提供通识文化的说法，称它培养法律推理、法律批判和法律纪律，并承认法律教学有时可能被视为相当枯燥，同时称法律是一门有趣的学科。发言者拒绝亚里士多德关于法律是摆脱激情的理性的观念，承认法学院并不完美，但坚持认为在大学学习法律是成为法律执业者的最佳准备，并在问答环节&中承认，如果萨姆普申勋爵读过法律，他会更容易确立自己的地位，同时争辩说人并非必须先学习另一门学科。他同意维尔戈的观点，即大多数职业培训课程非常不令人满意，说他100%的法律知识是通过执业学到的，争辩说法律思维往往会抑制好奇心，并在举手表决后称结果为“主队”的胜利，感谢观众并邀请他们参加招待会。
带时间戳的章节摘要
开场发言与辩论前投票
- [0:00] 发言者欢迎观众，包括来自当地第六学级学院的学生。
- [0:12] 发言者询问观众中有多少人是法律本科生。
- [0:23] 辩论动议是：希望从事法律实践的人不应在大学学习法律。
- [0:38] Sumption勋爵被描述为五六位未先在下级法院任职而直接进入最高法院的法官之一，在他之前最后一位这样的法官是Reid勋爵。
- [0:53] Sumption勋爵撰写过历史书籍，包括关于百年战争的著作，如《Trial by Battle》和《Trial by Fire》。
- [1:08] Sumption勋爵将发言15到20分钟，随后是Virgo教授，然后是提问、简短总结和投票。
- [1:21] 在任何人发言之前进行了一次粗略的辩论前投票。
未来律师应该读法律吗？
- [2:40] Virgo教授设计了这场辩论，并给自己分配了较容易的一方。
- [3:05] 这样的辩论会简化问题并使观点两极化，尽管在现实生活中答案通常取决于具体情况。
- [3:45] 在当前条件下，不读法律但打算执业的人需要多花一年时间才能取得资格，而此时专业资格几乎得不到公共财政支持。
- [4:37] 不应以未来执业者的身份，而应以当下哲学家的身份来看待这个问题，至少应带有一些理想主义成分。
- [5:39] 法律并非一门糟糕的学科，但最好读点别的，而且不要把它作为第一个学位。
- [5:56] 学习法律有其优势，尤其是对那些不打算执业的人来说，因为法律的教学方式既有趣又巧妙，并且传授了法律的智识方法和基本原则。
- [6:39] 对于打算执业的人来说，法律是错误的学位，原因有二：失去学习另一门学科的机会会在个人层面造成贫乏，而且它并非为专业法律执业所做的最佳准备。
- [7:22] 伟大的智识美德是好奇心和想象力，它们在大约15岁到25岁之间最为新鲜、最具弹性。
作为封闭世界的法律与大学的目的
- [7:44] 大多数法律执业者并不擅长摆脱谋生的平庸局限，尽管有些人能够做到。
- [8:01] 法律是一门祭司式的手艺，也是一个在智识上相对封闭的世界。
- [8:18] 也许除了职业实践的最高层级之外，留给思辨的空间非常有限。
- [8:25] 法律学习依赖于有限范围的原始材料，其中许多由法官创设或属于成文法，不适合由学生加以修改。
- [8:53] 在社会层面，由于职业生活的组织和压力，法律是在一个相对封闭的世界中执业的。
- [9:31] 法律执业意味着在与你非常相似的人所组成的投契氛围中长时间工作，而且律师常常彼此通婚。
- [9:51] 这场辩论取决于一个人对大学教育应有功能的看法。
- [10:22] 如果大学纯粹是职业准备，或者如果你像现任政府那样认为大学的存在是为了最大化国民生产总值增长，那么学习法律是明智的。
- [10:37] 演讲者拒绝这两个命题，并且不把自己仅仅视为一个生产要素。
- [10:53] 大学的功能是使人们能够从总体生活中获得尽可能最大的智识满足，而不仅仅是工作。
- [11:18] 一生主要关注同一门学科，从18岁到65岁，仅仅因为以此谋生，与替代选择相比是严重贫乏的。
- [11:39] 如果你不打算执业，本科阶段学习法律可以开阔思维，但如果该学位只是40年大致相同内容的序幕，那就不能。
法律学位并非执业的最佳准备
- [13:24] 学习法律实际上并不是从事法律执业的最佳准备。
- [13:32] 大学法律学位具有其他法律教育无法提供的某些优势，尤其是对广泛法律原则的整体视野。
- [13:54] 大多数职业培训课程倾向于将法律视为特定学科的、或多或少自成一体的岛屿。
- [14:05] 执业者过于倾向于过于狭隘地看待法律问题，不顾其专业之外的一般法律原则。
- [14:24] 这种狭隘性与法律职业两个分支中日益增长的专业化相关，这是律师无论接受何种培训都会陷入的倾向。
- [14:52] 无论是大学教育还是纯粹职业培训，你大部分的法律知识和几乎全部的判断力都是通过在公众身上执业而学到的。
- [15:07] 非法律专业毕业生在对法律问题进行广泛思考方面与法律专业毕业生一样好或一样差；这取决于特定执业者的智识能力。
- [15:26] 任何智识要求高的职业都需要清晰而逻辑的头脑、相当程度的替代性经验，以及口头或书面连贯组织思想的能力。
- [15:51] 这些品质原则上可以通过学习任何智识要求高的学科而获得。
- [16:07] 智识能力和想象力远比执业者的专业化智识知识重要得多。
- [16:20] 约翰·保罗·盖蒂在被问及为何雇用如此多古典学者时回答说：他们卖出更多石油。
- [16:33] 许多杰出的职业律师并未学习法律，这表明盖蒂的格言远远适用于石油行业之外。
为何法律容易而事实困难
- [19:05] 从事法律执业会揭示其中令人惊讶地少有法律；掌握基础知识相对容易。
- [19:18] 法律执业中最具挑战性的部分是理解和分析复杂的事实、大量的文件档案，以及受记忆和偏见影响的证人行为。
- [19:37] 包括最高法院案件在内的极高比例案件，表面上关乎法律，实际上关乎对事实的正确分析和分类。
- [19:52] 法律被描述为极其容易，主要是加了花哨的常识；困难的是事实，一旦正确理解并95%无关事实，法律解决方案几乎总是显而易见的。
- [20:16] 成功律师的首要要求是理解事实的卓越能力，而且往往是在冷僻领域。
- [20:29] 头号资格是尽可能大的个人经验储备，其中许多是替代性经验；法律学位并不是获得替代性经验的最佳方式。
- [20:48] 要求对事实和证据进行严肃分析的学位课程——科学、数学、古典学、历史、英语或外语——可能更有用。
- [21:13] 汤姆·宾厄姆在大学时是历史学者，一生从事严肃的学术历史研究，这使他的判决充满了人性和观察力。
- [21:44] 这些品质对执业者，尤其是辩护律师，与对法官一样宝贵。
- [21:55] 英国法律体系在语言表达的清晰有力方面是最为严苛的体系之一，英国叙事式判决具有大陆法系和欧盟法院所缺乏的文学品质。
- [22:24] 口头辩护在英国法律体系中具有独特重要的地位；法学学位相比其他人文学科学位，更不可能——而且很可能更不可能——提高语言驾驭能力。
- [22:47] 剑桥的联合学位让你鱼与熊掌兼得，但演讲者怀疑，许多人并不能因此对任一学科获得单独学习该学科所能达到的专业或深刻理解。
介绍 Virgo 教授
关于是否应在大学学习法律的开场白
- [25:04] Graham Virgo 自我介绍说，他是这所大学的法学毕业生，后来成为出庭律师，又回到这里教授法律。
- [25:23] 他感谢 Sumption 勋爵出席并面对听众，并指出开场时的举手表决表明听众可能怀有敌意。
- [25:52] 法学院做什么以及为什么这样做，必须始终在全国和地方层面接受审视。
- [26:04] 剑桥法学院目前正在审查法律教学大纲中的所有内容，以确保学生为法律职业生涯做好充分准备。
- [26:27] 这场辩论不涉及先学另一门学科再转学法律、转换课程、附属法学学位，也不涉及像美国或澳大利亚那样转向研究生法律学习。
- [27:07] 这场辩论也不涉及一年制法律研究生文凭是否能让你为法律实践做好充分准备，尽管他很乐意主张它不能。
- [27:29] 动议只是说，如果你想在这个国家成为出庭律师或事务律师，你就不应该在大学学习法律，因为那不会对你有帮助。
- [27:44] Sumption 勋爵去年的文章引发了这场辩论；他在文中强调，法律实践不是关于法律，而是关于事实以及分析事实的能力。
- [28:04] 为分析事实做好充分准备可以通过在大学学习另一门学科来实现，从而能够分析证据并进行纯逻辑思维。
- [28:27] 对于希望进入法律实践的人来说，法学本科学位是浪费时间，研究生 LLM 学习也是浪费时间。
法律需要整体理解，而不仅仅是事实
- [28:51] 演讲者反对该动议，首先因为法律是关于事实和证据而非法律规则的说法是有缺陷的。
- [29:04] 同样的论点绝不会被用来说医生：人们不会认为医生在学习任何专业后通过一年制转换课程就做好了充分准备。
- [29:20] 一位全科医生说头部不是核心科目但可以查资料，这会令人担忧。
- [29:40] 这本质上就是反对在大学学习法律的论点：你不需要知道规则，你可以查。
- [29:56] 法律从业者与全科医生之间的类比很恰当：事实至关重要，但诊断才是关键，并且需要整体方法。
- [30:12] 整体方法需要理解能力，以及在法律理解的不同领域之间建立联系的能力。
- [30:28] 有人可能会说法律远不如医学重要，但演讲者不同意：法律极其重要，法律职业在这个国家扮演着重要角色。
- [30:51] 说法律仅仅、甚至主要是关于评估证据和事实，是对法律和法律职业的贬低。
作为博学职业的法律
- [31:08] 对于法官、出庭律师和事务律师来说，法律远不止他们的职责。
- [31:17] 第二个论点涉及法律职业本身。
- [31:22] Sumption 勋爵否认法律作为一门学科的相关性，这迎合了一种不幸的刻板印象。
- [31:29] 作家 Jane Gardham 在她的书《Old Filth》中指出了这种刻板印象，书中一位老出庭律师小时候被告知他会成为律师：丰厚的收入、逻辑感、没有想象力、没有头脑。
- [31:54] 法律职业，包括法律学者，远不止于此，它是一个博学的职业。
- [32:06] 一位伟大的法官说过，这个职业长期以来被正确地称为博学的职业，因为没有人能在不精通其领域的情况下妥善从事法律工作。
- [32:29] 律师必须具备的不仅仅是天赋和技能，还必须在真正学术的意义上博学。
- [32:42] 法律学术是正当的学术；法律是一门值得研究的学科，涉及严谨的思考。
- [32:53] 演讲者承认一句廉价的挖苦：Sumption 勋爵在牛津读的是历史，也许他描述的是牛津的法律，肯定不是这里的。
- [33:13] 法律学习需要想象力、创造力和深入学习。
法律教育中的入学机会与多样性问题
作为普遍文化的法律
- [34:31] Sumption 勋爵假定进入法律职业的人缺乏对普遍文化的欣赏，而在大学学习法律无法帮助他们获得这种欣赏。
- [34:51] 学习古典学、语言、数学或历史只能让人理解普遍文化的一个方面，而非所有方面。
- [35:27] 法学学生和教师仍在业余时间从事文化活动，在法律学习之外研习语言、文学和历史。
- [35:48] 学习法律本身就涉及历史、哲学、语言以及一般文化的各个不同方面。
- [36:06] 法律就是文化，或者至少提供了理解文化的镜子。
- [36:16] 劳伦斯·罗森在《作为文化的法律》中主张，若将法律仅仅视为规制纠纷的规则，我们便无法理解我们的世界是如何构成的。
- [36:52] 对比较法学者而言，法律提供了理解外国文化的一扇窗口。
- [37:02] 法律关乎事实、故事和纠纷，而在分析这些故事并提供解决方案的过程中，我们能够更好地理解文化。
为什么要在大学学习法律
为什么学习法律：批判、自律与热情
- [38:57] 法律涉及法律批判，执业律师需要知道法律有什么问题，以便预测并参与法律变革。
- [39:13] 学习法律培养法律自律：以逻辑方式处理重大问题、评估证据并得出理性结论。
- [39:30] 跨多个学科的教学要求学生将法律知识、法律推理、伦理和批判结合起来。
- [40:12] 演讲者选择在六年级时学习法律，想要理解、改变、捍卫，并拥有一门具有真正智识自律的学科。
- [40:49] 萨姆普申勋爵提出的、法学院必须注意的观点是：法律的教学与研究有时可能被视为相当枯燥，并不被认为是一门有趣的学科。
- [41:18] 演讲者不同意萨姆普申勋爵，认为法律是一门有趣的学科，充满真正的兴奋与热情。
- [41:57] 针对亚里士多德“法律是摆脱了激情的理性”的说法，演讲者发现激情是学习和实践法律以及生活的一个关键要素。
- [42:40] 法学院并不完美，需要认真思考它们做什么以及为什么这样做，但在大学学习法律是成为法律执业者的最佳准备。
关于学习法律的辩论问答&
- [43:29] 主持人设定辩论规则：不许踢人，不许击打腰部以下，不许用头撞人，但允许廉价攻击。
- [43:38] 观众被邀请展现热情，并向任一位演讲者提问。
- [43:51] 一位观众提问：如果萨姆普申勋爵拥有法律学位，他是否会成为更好的律师。
- [44:18] 演讲者承认，如果萨姆普申勋爵读过法律，他会更容易在法律职业中立足。
- [44:31] 演讲者澄清，他的论点并不是说人应当总是学习法律，或者只能通过学习法律才能成为法律执业者。
- [44:47] 他指出，他没有列出那些在大学学习过法律的法官，因为那份名单会太长。
- [47:32] 他说，他并不是在暗示在攻读法律之前先取得其他学科的本科学位没有价值，他称这是一种非常有价值的做法。
- [47:51] 他所质疑的是这样一种说法：你实际上必须这样做才能成为成功的执业者。
- [48:00] 他同意格雷厄姆·维尔戈的观点，即大多数职业培训课程非常不令人满意，尽管它们曾经糟糕得多。
- [48:44] 他说，他的法律知识有100%是通过执业学到的，而且学得相当快，他说这并非不寻常的经历。
- [48:57] 他将法律与医学作对比：医生不能在问诊前半小时才死记硬背医学科学和诊断艺术，但这正是他作为律师一辈子都在做的事。
法律训练与被抑制的好奇心
- [50:25] 律师可能通过律师所研究的生存方面，对社会有所了解，甚至可能了解很多。
- [50:33] 演讲者不同意不存在更好的了解社会的方式这一说法。
- [50:39] 法律训练所灌输的法律思维习惯——不仅是在大学里——往往会抑制好奇心。
- [50:54] 法律训练产生一种对外部世界的态度，与刚才所表达的观点不一致。
- [51:05] 演讲者曾在牛津大学莫德林学院担任历史研究员多年。
- [51:10] 约翰·莫里斯是《戴西与莫里斯论法律冲突》的编者，也是莫德林学院最杰出的律师之一。
- [51:22] 奥登被安葬在奥地利基希施泰滕的乡间别墅后的第二天，演讲者走进午餐室，听到约翰·莫里斯说他从未去过基希施泰滕，也从未有过丝毫想去的愿望。
- [51:48] 莫里斯说，他现在想去了，这样他就可以在奥登的坟上跳舞。
关于执业前学习法律的驳论
- [52:13] 格雷厄姆指出，评论人罗伊·古德教授是一位知名作者，并为他早先关于牛津的言论表示歉意，他本人曾在牛津学习过一年。
- [52:39] Graham 将动议重述为：如果你想进入法律实务，你就不应该学习法律，因为那是浪费时间。
- [53:02] 尽管人们对在大学学习法律存在误解，Graham 认为它富有智力性，而进入博学的法律职业的最佳途径是良好的法律教育基础。
- [53:49] 反方发言人说，他并未声称也不认为在大学读法律是浪费时间。
- [54:03] 他提出，还有其他更好、更能拓展思维的方式，来获得律师所需的推理能力。
- [54:17] 他说，他关于法律是一个封闭世界的观点，被 Graham Virgo 自己的论证迅速证实了。
- [54:36] 他争辩说，那些声称法律极其重要、对理解世界至关重要的说法，只有律师才会说，他们是在为自己当啦啦队。
- [55:22] 他主张，任何说大学法律学术对成功的执业者或杰出法官必不可少的人，都必须解释 19 世纪晚期之前的杰出法官，以及没有法律学位的杰出律师。
- [56:14] 他并不否认法律学术的价值，但否认在大学学习法律是获得它的唯一途径。
关于学习法律动议的辩论后投票
闭幕致谢与招待会邀请
[0:00] 今天很高兴在辩论中看到这么多人。我了解到有相当多来自当地六年级学院的学生，特别欢迎他们。我们很高兴他们来了。我出于好奇问一下，这里有多少人是法律本科生？所以你们都是来听 Sumption 勋爵告诉你们为什么你们在浪费时间的，对吗？如你们所知，辩论的题目是：希望从事法律实务的人不应在大学学习法律。谢谢。呃——我们有两位杰出的演讲者。
[0:33] Sumption 勋爵将首先发言，你们有一份讲义，上面简单介绍了他。你们可能不知道的是，我认为他是五六位从未在下级法院任职而直接进入最高法院的法官之一，上一位这样的法官是 Reid 勋爵。他还撰写了杰出的历史著作，特别是关于百年战争的。我记得其中一个书名是《战斗审判》，第二个是《烈火审判》。我不太确定最高法院是不是做这些事。我希望那里的审判过程更精细一些。
[1:08] 他将发言 15 到 20 分钟，然后我们将听取 Virgo 教授的发言。之后我们会提问，最后他们各自简短总结，然后我们进行投票。但出于好奇，我们现在先做一个非常粗略的即时投票，完全不听任何发言，请举手。认为希望从事法律实务的人不应在大学学习法律的，有多少？认为应该的，有多少？认为不应该的，有多少？
[1:46] 好的，我们从 Sumption 勋爵开始。非常感谢。谢谢。嗯……正如我们刚刚展示的。今晚在座的许多人，无论这场辩论得出什么观点，都为时已晚。谢谢。当然，你们中有些人将读第一部分。你们中有些人在中学，但我怀疑你们中很多人已经下定决心，致力于读法律。毕竟这里是法学院。
[2:24] 所以有人可能会问：“我在这里做什么？”在一个寒冷的二月夜晚出现，向 300 位有些智慧的人发表演讲，论证他们都犯了一个可怕的错误，而现在他们对此无能为力。当然，Virgo 教授负责设计今晚的辩论，他给自己分配了轻松的选择。他会告诉你们，你们都……足够明智、高尚和睿智，在早期做出了正确的政策选择，如果你们一开始不至少同意他，那你们就不太像人了。
[3:05] 当然，像这样的辩论的问题在于，它们简化问题并使观点两极分化。今晚你们面前的问题只允许两个答案。一个是是，另一个是否。当然，在现实生活中，答案通常既不是是也不是否，而是视情况而定。但这不是今晚结束时你们可以选择给出的答案。当然，这尤其适用于这个问题：如果一个人打算成为执业者，是否应该在大学读法律。
[3:45] 在当前情况下，任何不在大学学习法律但打算执业的人，当然会比那些确实学过法律的同龄人多花一年时间才能取得资格。而这是一个几乎没有任何公共财政支持可用于获得专业资格的时期。你们中大多数只参加那门课程的人，将不得不在你们最初为读完大学已经借的钱之上再借钱才能完成学业。
[4:16] 现在，我一刻也不会低估……这给人们带来的困难。选择学习法律——如果你以后想执业——或者选择不学法律——如果你以后想执业——是一个需要一些勇气的决定，我对此毫不掩饰。所以，我今晚想对你们说的第一点是，你们应该探讨这样一个问题，但不是作为一个未来的执业者，而是可以说，作为一个当下的哲学家。
[4:51] 我还建议，你们至少应该带着一点理想主义来探讨这个问题。你们的问题不应该是：现在，什么答案适合我？问题应该是：什么答案会适合一个文明世界？那种我真正愿意生活在其中的世界。也许是一个学生选择不会以完全相同的方式受到这个特定行业惯例约束的世界，或者不会因助学金预算限制而产生的财务约束的世界。
[5:26] 然而，这并非毫无意义的练习。实际上，世界有一种追赶其理想的方式。但前提是它首先愿意承认那些理想。现在，我首先可以说，我并不是说法律是一门不适合在大学学习的糟糕科目。我要说的是，最好学点别的。换句话说，你不应该把它作为第一学位来读。
[5:56] 现在，我欣然接受，在大学学习法律确实有一些优势，而且对于那些不打算余生都从事法律实践的人来说，这些优势可能非常具有说服力。在大多数英国大学里，法律的教学方式既有趣又极其巧妙。作为更广泛生活学科的 background，法律是有价值的，因为它向那些不打算执业的人传达了法律的智识方法，以及一套基本的法律原则。
[6:34] 我们社会的重要部分正是以此组织起来的。然而，在我看来，有两个理由说明法律对于那些打算执业的人来说是错误的学位选择。其一，我认为，在投身专业实践的学科之前失去学习另一门学科的机会，对个人发展是不利的，这在个人层面是贫乏的。另一个理由是，这对职业发展不利，因为学习法律并不是专业法律实践的最佳准备。
[7:17] 现在让我先谈谈第一点。嗯。我认为，无论你学习什么科目，伟大的智识美德都是我们的好奇心和想象力。而人类心智的这两种特质，在比如说15岁到25岁之间，在谋生的平庸局限降临之前，处于最鲜活、最敏锐、最具弹性的状态。
[7:48] 有些法律执业者非常善于摆脱这些局限，但根据我的经验，他们中的大多数并不擅长。原因很明显。法律是一门祭司般的手艺。在智识上，它是一个相对封闭的世界。对于执业者来说，无论是为客户提供建议，还是向法官陈述——除非也许是在专业实践的最高层——允许进行思辨的空间实际上非常有限。
[8:24] 这取决于法律学习所依赖的有限范围的原始材料。其中许多原始材料当然是由其他律师——即法官——设计的。许多是成文法，因此是既定的，至少其学生不适合修改。它还依赖于一种特定的思维方式，而这种思维方式并不为大多数民众所共有。在社会层面，我也发现法律是在一个相对封闭的世界中实践的。
[9:00] 原因很简单……职业生活的组织和压力。刑事执业者确实会见到许多非传统的人，尽管小偷实际上并不像你想象的那么多变。扒窃的方式相当有限。法律实践涉及长时间工作。其中许多时间是在非常投缘的伙伴陪伴下度过的，但一般来说，是和你非常相似的人在一起。
[9:31] 而且和医生一样，律师彼此结婚的频率实际上相当惊人。法律在许多方面是一个美妙的职业，但这是一个其从业者或许比其他群体更需要一扇通向外部世界的窗户的职业。在这场辩论中，很大程度上必然取决于你对大学教育应有功能的总体看法。
[10:02] 如果你把大学时光纯粹视为日后谋生的职业准备，再加上一些相当不错的社交生活，那么在那种情况下，即使你打算以后执业，学习法律也完全合理。如果你像现任政府那样，认为大学的存在是为了最大化国民生产总值的增长，而且几乎不为了任何其他目的，那么你很可能最终会持同样的观点。
[10:37] 就我而言，我拒绝这两种主张。然而，经济规划者……可能如何看待我在宇宙中的功能，我不认为自己仅仅是一个生产要素，我也不认为在座的任何人会这样想。我认为大学的功能是装备人们，不仅从工作中，而且从整个生活中获得最大可能的智力满足。我认为，它对我们在周末以及无论晚上几点回家后如何度过生活的贡献，至少与它对我们的收入的贡献同样重要。
[11:18] 我想说的是，一个人从18岁到65岁主要关注同一门学科，因为这是谋生的好方法，与许多其他选择相比，这样的生活是严重贫乏的。如果你不打算从事法律工作，那么本科阶段学习法律可能是一种开阔视野的经历。同样的情况也适用于……
[11:49] 事实上，如果……这个学位仅仅是大约40年时间内更多类似事情的前奏，情况就不一样了。如果你要学习法律，那么利用你一生中智力上最具形成性的时期的机会——学习语言、文学、哲学、神学或历史等等——是一个不应错过的机会。
[12:24] 问题在于，一个人的生命不够长，不足以涵盖一生中可能好奇的所有事情。不幸的是，我们只有一次生命。因此，我们需要大量的替代经验以及个人经验。而我们不会从法律学习中大量获得这些。法律是一种非常糟糕的替代体验任何事物的方式。而我提到的其他学科，以及许多我没有提到的学科，实际上是替代经验的绝佳宝库。
[13:06] 据说本杰明·迪斯雷利在下议院说过：“我们在这里是为了乐趣。”我想告诉你们的是，我见过很多律师，我认为那些在大学里学了其他东西的人更有乐趣。现在，说到这里，我想转向我的第二点，即学习法律实际上并不是从事法律工作的最佳准备。我承认……大学法律学位有一些优势，是任何其他类型的法律教育都无法提供的。
[13:42] 特别是……大学学位应该让学生对广泛的法律原则领域有一个整体看法。相比之下，大多数专业培训课程倾向于将法律视为一系列特定主题、或多或少自成一体的岛屿。我认为从业者也过于倾向于过于狭隘地看待法律问题，而不考虑任何一般法律原则，这些原则他们很可能在自己的专业领域之外找到。
[14:22] 现在——谢谢。问题在于，律师之所以这样行事，我认为原因并不是他们在大学或专业课程中学习法律的方式。这是一个与日益增加的专业化相关的问题，这种专业化多年来一直是法律职业两个分支的特点。恐怕这是律师无论以何种方式或在何处接受律师培训都会屈服的一种倾向。事实是，无论你接受的是大学教育还是纯粹的法律专业教育，你实际上大部分法律知识和几乎所有的判断力都是通过在公众身上实践学到的。
[15:07] 我的经验是，非法律专业毕业生在广泛思考法律问题方面与法律专业毕业生一样好或一样差，视情况而定。一切取决于特定从业者的智力能力。作为一般命题，任何智力要求高的职业，无论是法律还是其他，首要要求是清晰逻辑的头脑、大量的替代经验，此外，我认为还有能够将连贯的思想串联起来的能力，无论是口头还是书面。
[15:51] 原则上，这些品质可以通过学习任何智力要求高的学科来获得。这对那些打算成为律师的人以及那些打算从事法律工作的人同样适用。最终，智力和想象力比从业者的专业智力知识重要得多。约翰·保罗·盖蒂，那位以言简意赅著称的美国石油亿万富翁。
[16:24] 曾被问及为什么他在企业中雇用了那么多古典学者。他的回答是：“他们卖更多的石油。”现在，只需看看大量没有学习法律的杰出专业律师，就能看出盖蒂的格言适用范围远不止石油行业。在美国，法律从未作为第一学位提供。
[16:56] 然而，美国在其存在的两个世纪里似乎产生了一些非常有趣的律师。在英国，直到相对较近的时期，律师最常见的培训实际上是古典学，而过去一个世纪最伟大的英国法官名单，我认为会很有启发性。可以说，刚刚过去的这个世纪最伟大的英国法官是大学学习数学的丹宁勋爵和大学学习历史的宾汉姆勋爵。
[17:31] 现在，他们与非常优秀的同伴为伍。赖特勋爵、阿特金勋爵和威尔伯福斯勋爵都读过古典学。而不是化学。麦凯勋爵读过数学和物理。最高法院现任副院长霍普勋爵读过古典学。而现任法院院长纽伯格勋爵读过化学。在成为银行家之后，才作为最后手段转向法律。事实上，他最近让一群以痴迷于正式学历而闻名的德国律师感到震惊，他说他实际上发现从更严格的学科转向不那么严格的学科相当容易。真正的问题在于朝相反的方向转。
[18:19] 现在，如果你看看那些知名人士，在现任执业者中，报纸报道里经常看到的人——迈克尔·贝洛夫、迈克尔·曼斯菲尔德、黛娜·罗斯——都在大学学过历史。我希望这门课程目录至少能说服你们中的很多人，你可以在大学毕业后才认真考虑法律，同时拥有相当令人满意的法律职业生涯。现在，我不认为这实际上是偶然的。有很多理由可以预期那些拥有法律以外学科学位的人。
[18:56] 会成为相当优秀的专业从业者。让我只提几个。第一，当你开始执业时你会发现，法律中令人惊讶地几乎没有多少法律。当然，你确实需要对基础有良好的掌握。但那相对容易获得。法律实践中最具挑战性的事情是理解和分析往往相当复杂的事实、大量的文件档案，以及那种记忆与偏见的奇怪组合，正是这种组合解释了人类在证人席上的行为方式。
[19:37] 提交到法院（包括最高法院）的案件中，有相当高的比例表面上关乎法律。但实际上关乎对事实的正确分析和分类。事实是，尽管我在当前场合说这话有些犹豫，法律其实非常简单。大部分是加了花哨的常识。困难的是事实。一旦你正确理解了这些事实，并剥离掉那些完全不重要的95%事实，法律解决方案几乎总是显而易见的。
[20:16] 这就是为什么成功律师的首要要求是出色的理解事实的能力，往往是在相对晦涩的人类领域。因此，做到这一点的头号资格是拥有尽可能大的个人经验储备，其中大部分按事物本性将是间接的。正如我所说，法律学位并不是获得间接经验的最佳方式。
[20:48] 要求对事实和证据进行严肃分析的学位课程可能有用得多。它们包括大多数明显的分析性学科，如科学和数学，或者包括古典学、历史、英语或外语等提供必要间接经验的学科。汤姆·宾厄姆……不仅在大学时是历史学家，而且一生都追求对严肃学术历史的兴趣。
[21:23] 而这一事实，我认为，将他许多最伟大的判决注入了人性和对世界的观察能力，这在很大程度上使他成为一位伟大的法官，而这是他在大学学习法律所无法获得的。他将不得不做其他事情来获得这些品质。现在，这些品质对从业者和对像汤姆·宾厄姆这样的法官一样宝贵。特别是如果他们打算作为辩护律师执业。
[21:55] 英国法律体系是世界上最苛刻的法律体系之一。就纯粹的语言表达能力而言。英国的叙事性判决具有文学品质。这在民法法系的司法系统或欧盟法院或欧洲人权法院中完全缺乏，那些判决是用我们都非常熟悉的戴立克式机器人语言的特殊风格表达的。看吧。口头辩护在英国法律体系以及以其为蓝本的法律体系中具有独特重要的地位。
[22:33] 法律学位课程。并不比任何其他人文学科学位更可能提高你的语言能力。而且很可能更不可能做到。现在，在某种程度上，当然，尤其是在剑桥，你可以通过攻读联合学位来两者兼得。我个人怀疑……许多联合学位是否能给你提供单独学习其中一门学科所能获得的专业或深刻理解程度，尽管有些联合学位显然可以。在剑桥第一部分荣誉学位考试后切换一半时间的问题在于，在实践中，如果你要获得法律资格，你通常必须读第四年，因此这将花费你与先读三年其他学科然后参加普通专业考试一样长的时间。
[23:31] 当然，即使那些一生都在学习法律的人也可以在以后赶上。他们可以在业余时间阅读其他学科。他们可以学习在大学未能学习的外语。他们可以在以后使自己成为 universal men or women。理论上。令人惊讶的是，在现代职业生活的压力下，实际这样做的人少之又少。因此，在我看来，真正的问题是，当你可以在一个拓宽思维的学科中获得严肃的智力基础，而你不会在接下来的40年里学习它时，为什么要仅仅追赶呢。
[24:09] 为什么要仅仅追赶？当你可以在一所伟大大学令人振奋的环境中学习它，周围都是追求非常相似兴趣的天才同龄人。这是一个永远不会再来的机会。所以不要。现在失去机会。谢谢。好了，我们现在有Virgo教授，你们大多数人都认识他。
[24:45] 他不认识的人。他是刑法和衡平法方面的专家，一位优秀的教师。他现在要告诉你们为什么他没有浪费生命。谢谢。谢谢。我叫Graham Virgo。我在大学读法律。实际上我是在这所大学读的法律。然后我成为了大律师。
[25:17] 然后我回来在这所大学教法律。我要继续，首先，我要感谢Sumption勋爵来到这里面对这里的人群。我意识到这并不容易，尤其是考虑到一开始的举手表决，尤其是坐在这个房间靠后的人，这可能就像让火鸡投票支持圣诞节。但Sumption勋爵提出了一个非常严肃的问题。
[25:52] 我们在法学院做什么以及为什么这样做必须始终接受审查。谢谢。这需要在全国范围内接受审查，就像目前一样。也在地方层面。目前，在剑桥，这所法学院正在审查我们在法律教学大纲中所做的一切，以确保我们为我们的法律学生做好适当的准备，为那些希望进入法律职业的人，为他们未来的法律职业生涯。
[26:27] 我应该在一开始就强调这场辩论不是关于什么，考虑到动议。首先，它不是关于你是否可以或应该在大学学习另一个科目，然后转学法律。我们不是在谈论在像剑桥这样的大学内进行转换课程是否合适，或者附属法律学位。这场辩论不是关于我们是否应该转向研究生法律学习。
[27:03] 就像在美国或澳大利亚那样。甚至也不是关于你是否通过完成一年的法律研究生文凭（转换课程）获得足够的法律实践准备。尽管我很乐意争辩说，这不足以作为法律实践的准备。这项动议只是说，如果你想在这个国家成为大律师或事务律师，那么你不应该在大学学习法律。
[27:41] 这不会帮助你。Sumption勋爵去年写了一篇文章，这确实促成了今天的辩论。他在刚才的发言中总结了那篇文章的一些内容。在那篇文章中，他强调法律实践不是关于法律，而是关于事实。这是关于分析事实的能力，正如我们刚刚听到的，你可以通过在大学学习另一个科目获得分析事实的充分准备。
[28:18] 这将使你能够分析证据或发展纯逻辑思维。换句话说... 对于希望进入法律实践的人来说，法律本科学位是浪费时间。更不用说你们那些在LLM期间留下来进行研究生学习的人。你们真的在浪费时间。我有四个关键论点想要强调。
[28:51] 关于为什么我不支持这项动议。第一个论点是，法律不仅仅是法律规则，而是关于事实和证据。我们永远不会对医生使用这种论点。我们永远不会争辩说医生应该只做一个一年的转换课程，学任何他们喜欢的东西，而那一年的转换课程将是完美的。完全足够的准备。如果我因为头痛去看我的全科医生，如果我的全科医生说：“嗯，我没学过那个。头部不是核心科目的一部分，但我可以查一下。”我会相当担心。
[29:38] 我知道如何找到答案。但这本质上就是反对在大学学习法律的论点。你不需要知道规则。你可以查一下。这完全是关于事实。这完全是关于证据。法律从业者和全科医生之间的类比是一个很好的类比。事实是必不可少的，但诊断至关重要；需要采取整体方法，而要采取整体方法，你需要理解能力以及在医学理解或法律理解的各种不同领域之间建立联系的能力。
[30:28] 现在我们可能会说与医学的类比并不好。法律不像医学那样只是生死攸关的问题。它远没有那么重要。我不同意。法律极其重要。法律职业在这个国家扮演着极其重要的角色。坦率地说，说法律只是... 贬低了法律，也贬低了法律职业。
[30:59] 关于评估证据或事实，甚至主要是关于评估证据和事实。无论你是法官、大律师还是事务律师，法律远不止于此。谢谢。我的第二个论点与法律职业本身有关。Sumption勋爵拒绝法律作为一门学科的相关性，迎合了一个不幸的刻板印象，作家Jane Gardham在她出色的书《Old Filth》中指出了这一点。
[31:39] 关于一位老律师，他小时候被告知... 你会成为一名律师。丰厚的金钱，逻辑感，没有想象力，没有头脑。但法律职业，法律学者也是其中一部分... 远不止于此。它是一个博学的职业。一位伟大的法官曾经说过，法律职业自古以来就被称为博学的职业，这是正确的。
[32:16] 因为没有人——我还要补充一句，也没有女人——能够恰当地实践或适用法律，除非他通晓与其相关的那个法律领域。他必须具备的不只是天资，也不只是技能。他必须在真正学识的意义上是有学问的。这是对的。法律学术是正当的学术。法律是一门值得研究的学科。
[32:50] 并且涉及严谨的思考。尽管萨姆普申勋爵刚刚说了那些话——我知道这是很廉价的攻击——但萨姆普申勋爵在牛津读的是历史，也许他描述的是牛津的法律，肯定不是这里的法律。因为实际上，法律——我知道那是廉价的攻击——但法律学习需要……
[33:20] 想象力、创造力和深度学习。律师构成一个有学问的职业的一部分，如果他们先学过法律，他们就更有学问。我的第三个论点是萨姆普申勋爵触及并承认的。那就是准入问题。如果我们真的转向一种制度，禁止你在大学学习法律——如果你想成为执业律师——那将产生深远的财务后果。
[33:59] 它将需要额外的学习、额外的费用。而在大学内部以及法律职业内部，我们都越来越关注准入和多元化问题的时候，这是一个非常重要的论点。谢谢。我的第四个论点是……萨姆普申勋爵在其文章中所称的普通文化。
[34:31] 萨姆普申勋爵的假设是，进入法律职业的人缺乏对普通文化的鉴赏力。而在大学学习法律无法帮助他们获得对他所谓的普通文化的理解。但古典学或语言学的学习是如何起作用的呢？数学，甚至历史，能弥合这一差距吗？诚然，它提供了一种理解，一种获取与普通文化某一方面的知识的能力，但只是它的一个方面。它并不涵盖普通文化的所有方面。
[35:18] 而对于我们这些学习法律、教授法律的人来说……有两点特别值得强调。第一，我们仍然做文化，我们只是在业余时间做。我们确实学习语言。我们确实学习文学。我们确实学习历史。我们只是不一定把它作为法律学习的一部分，尽管当然我们中的许多人在学习法律时确实如此，你是在接触……
[35:53] 历史、哲学、语言以及普通文化各种不同的方面。关于普通文化的另一点是，实际上法律就是文化，或者至少它提供了理解文化的镜子。劳伦斯·罗森在他那本书名恰如其分地叫做《作为文化的法律》的书中说，如果一个人把法律仅仅视为与规范纠纷的规则有关……
[36:32] 而不是视为一个社会及其成员设想自身及其相互联系的领域……那么我们将无法理解我们的世界是如何构成的。法律实际上使你能够理解一种文化。对于我们这些学习比较法的人来说，法律提供了理解外国文化的一扇窗口。
[37:02] 法律实际上关乎事实。它关乎故事。它关乎纠纷。但在分析这些故事并为这些纠纷提供解决方案的过程中，我们能够更好地理解文化。所以最后……你为什么应该在大学学习法律？答案很简单。对于那些希望成为执业律师的人——当然并非每个学习法律的人都是如此——它使你成为更好的执业律师。那么为什么呢？
[37:40] 首先，当你在大学学习法律时，你获得了法律知识。但那是大学学习法律中最不重要的部分，法律会变化，而且它总是可以在书中或网上查阅——至少如果你知道去哪里找、如何找到，以及找到后如何理解的话。但法律学习远不止于此。它关乎法律推理。
[38:11] 法律推理对大多数人来说并非自然而然。它需要细致的训练，以及能够解释和分析的能力，而在大学学习法律使这一点得以实现。法律理解是法律学习的关键部分。那需要广度和深度。它需要与其他学科接触。法律不是溪流中的孤岛，它互动……
[38:45] 与经济、政治、哲学互动。我们所有学习法律的人、所有教授法律的人，都与那些其他学科接触。法律关乎法律批评。执业律师需要知道法律有什么问题，以便他们能够预测法律变化，并且也能参与其中。最后，法律学习关乎法律纪律。
[39:18] 以逻辑方式处理大问题的能力。评估证据并得出理性结论的能力。本周，我一直在给学习各种不同科目的法律学生授课。在那些科目中，我们一直在审视一些问题，这些问题要求学生具备法律知识、发展法律推理、理解伦理……
[39:48] 批评，并本质上发展法律纪律。各种不同的法律问题都需要应用这些不同的技术和特质。所以最后……为什么我……在那么多年以前……决定学习法律。当我还是六年级学生时，我问了各种大问题。但可能最大的问题，一个我此后经常问的问题，是“法律呢？”
[40:29] 为什么不在大学学习法律？我想理解。我想改变。我想捍卫。我想要一门具有真正智力训练性质的学科。而我得到了。但是……而且我认为，萨姆普申勋爵提出了一个重要观点，全国各地的法学院都需要意识到。我们有时会忘记的是，法律的教学和法律的学习有时可能被视为相当枯燥。
[41:10] 它不像我认为萨姆普申勋爵所说的那样被看作一门有趣的学科。萨姆普申勋爵能错到什么程度？它是一门有趣的学科。在法律学习中存在着真正的兴奋和热情。现在，正如有史以来关于法律的最伟大电影中的主角所说——最伟大的电影，而我对这部电影的了解表明我确实对一般文化有很好的理解。主角说……
[41:52] 一位非常睿智的教授……曾引用亚里士多德的话。法律是摆脱了激情的理性。好吧，无意冒犯亚里士多德，但我逐渐发现激情是学习和实践法律以及生活的关键要素。这是多么真实。正是那种激情感引导我学习法律、从事法律实践、研究和撰写关于法律的文章，而这种激情是法律职业的核心，如果它缺失了，它就应该存在，我们所有人都必须确保这种激情存在，这一点很重要。法学院并不完美。
[42:42] 我们法学院需要仔细思考我们在做什么以及为什么这样做。但在思考这一点时，只有一个结论，那就是：在大学学习法律并不是成为法律从业者的唯一准备。它是最好的准备。谢谢。不许踢，不许——不许击打腰部以下，不许用头撞或类似动作。但允许使用廉价攻击。
[43:36] 那是一个……现在。是时候让你们展示我们被告知你们都拥有的激情了。并向两位演讲者中的任何一位提问。谁先来？再见。谢谢。来吧，会有人——是的。你认为如果萨姆普申勋爵拥有法律学位，他会成为更好的律师吗？你的假设是一位杰出的律师。
[44:10] 毫无疑问。而他的职业生涯使这一点绝对非凡。清楚。嗯。我确信如果萨姆普申勋爵读过法律，他会更容易在法律职业中确立自己的地位。但我的论点当然不是说你应该总是学习法律，并且只有想成为法律从业者才能学习法律。萨姆普申勋爵给了我们一些伟大法官的例子，非常伟大的法官，他们没有在大学学习法律。
[44:47] 我没有对另一份在大学学习法律的法官名单做同样的事，来自最高法院、上诉法院、高等法院，因为我的名单会是一份如此长的名单。我没有足够的时间。答案可能是，如果他读过牛津大学的话就不会。但我称之为廉价攻击。我会回答。谢谢。是的。抱歉。实际上所以，我没有。
[45:24] 我们会有书。笑声 我当然想说——这个地方我——计划，好的。一年。太棒了。法律。作为主席。是的。那是正常规则。只有盲人。打扰一下。
[45:56] 谢谢。是的。我会回来的。董事会的选项 我 谢谢。有很多话要说。好的。其他一些人 我是新生。然后跟进适当的 回到那些。不。必须不 那个。还有爱。你想在开场白中说那个吗？阿门。他们看起来相当不错。
[46:31] 某事。谢谢。那是……多久一次？谢谢。就是这样。那个。我的第二点是……为什么是这样？谢谢。有人有问题吗？他没有通过。我很好。不。那意味着 来吧。就是这样。当然。我不知道。你的行动。谢谢。
[47:06] 谢谢。嗯。或者人类学家写书。我的想法 所以。得到一个列表。告诉过你对我来说。法律不重要。谢谢。关于这一切。谢谢。——谢谢。不，我的意思是——是的。我当然不是在暗示如果你在除法律以外的学科完成了本科学位就没有价值，或者之后在大学读法律有任何问题。我认为那是一项非常有价值的练习。我会受伤的。
[47:51] 是那种暗示你实际上需要这样做才能成为成功从业者的说法。事实是，直到最近真的相当近的时候。我的意思是，首先，我完全同意格雷厄姆·维尔戈所说的关于大多数专业培训课程高度不令人满意的性质，我只能说它们曾经非常非常糟糕得多。我——获得了对法律的第一次了解。通过去吉布森和韦尔德的补习学校，我是通过函授课程被送去的。
[48:25] 小蓝书 每隔两周左右，我会把论文寄回给某个无名的人，他们会把论文寄回来并附上批注。现在，我不会建议这是获得令人满意的法律知识的方式。但那不是我所建议的。事实是我通过实践学到了我100%的法律。而且我学得相当快。那不是一种不寻常的经历。因为事情的真相是，而且这是医学和法律之间的区别之一。
[49:01] 医生当然不能在咨询前半小时死记硬背必要的医学科学和诊断艺术。但我必须告诉你，根据长期经验，那正是我整个律师生涯一直在做的事情。每一个有任何经验或成功的从业者也是如此。谢谢。但还有一个问题。有任何问题，都好的。
[49:33] 抱歉，这里，这里，是的。嗯……关于那一点——我不疯 勋爵确实。学习或者实际上确实。呃——呃，就在左边。我会想要他们。了解很多关于它。我知道。我会争辩说同样 再见。嗯。法律是人类如何安置的反映 我不。
[50:08] 嗯。- 呃，我们很多人要回应这一点。谢谢。谢谢。我同意你从律师研究的社会存在的那些方面可以了解到一些东西，可能还很多。我不同意实际上没有更好的方法。
[50:39] 而且我认为法律思维的习惯——法律训练，我在这里不仅仅指大学——所灌输的，往往抑制好奇心，并产生一种对外部世界的态度，这与您刚才表达的观点不一致。我给你们讲一个故事……呃，这是一个非常极端的例子。我曾多年担任牛津大学莫德林学院的历史研究员。
[51:10] 莫德林学院最杰出的律师之一是约翰·莫里斯，《戴西与莫里斯论冲突法》的编辑。我对约翰·莫里斯最清晰的记忆是有一天走进午餐室。那是奥登被埋葬后的第二天。在他位于奥地利基希施泰滕的乡间别墅，我走进房间时正好听到他对总是和他一起吃午餐的一群全神贯注的律师说，*笑声* 我从未去过基希施泰滕。
[51:44] 而且我从未有过丝毫想去的愿望，现在我却想去了，这样我就可以在奥登的坟上跳舞。好了，现在每位发言者可以有两分钟时间来——回应和总结。格雷厄姆，你先来。谢谢。嗯。我首先要说，因为你们很多人不知道，其中一位发表评论的发言者是罗伊·古德爵士教授。
[52:21] 你们中有些人读过他的书。我对我说过的关于牛津的话感到非常抱歉。我自己也在那里学习了一年。我只想强调这个动议是什么。动议是说，如果你想进入法律实践，你就不应该学习法律。这是法律。浪费时间。
[52:53] 当然你可以学习其他科目。当然你可以从那些其他科目中学到很多。但之前我真正想说的是，我想再次强调，尽管关于大学学习法律有种种误解。而且有很多误解。这是一门非常深刻的科目。它是智识性的。它是需要学习的。
[53:25] 法律职业是一个博学的职业，进入该职业的最佳方式是具有良好的法律教育基础，而这只能通过严格的法律学习获得。谢谢。谢谢。好吧，我将——只提出三点。第一点是：我没有说。而且这也不是……我的论点的一部分。
[53:57] 在大学读法律是浪费时间。我也不这么认为。现在，我所建议的是，还有其他更好、更能开阔心智的方式来获得律师所需的那种推理能力。第二点是这样。当我在开场发言中说法律是一个封闭的世界时，我没想到会发现这种观点。
[54:29] 如此迅速地被证实，就像格雷厄姆·维尔戈在陈述他自己的论点时那样。法律至高无上重要，比任何其他科目都重要，对理解世界绝对至关重要的观念——所有这些都是你经常听到的言论。但只有律师这么说。在这方面它是独特的。有些人从未学过哲学，却钦佩哲学家。
[55:05] 有些人从未学过历史，却钦佩历史学家。律师是一个独特的群体，他们有一种相当引人注目的倾向，就是充当自己的啦啦队。第三点很简单。任何要提出如果没有那种最好在大学获得的法律学术，你就不能……成为一名成功的执业者或杰出的法官的人，首先是在说在19世纪结束之前，当第一代法官。
[55:46] 登上法官席之前，英格兰没有杰出的法官。那些在大学学习法律并获得有组织学位的人，实际上只是从19世纪中叶才存在。他还肩负着沉重的负担，要解释为什么许多不仅杰出的律师，而且我们最杰出的律师，实际上在没有法律学位的情况下也掌握了法律学术。我不否认法律学术的价值。
[56:17] 我确实否认。去大学学习它是获得它的唯一途径。好吧，我希望你们同意，这是一场非常启发性的辩论。现在你们有机会再次确认你们的偏见，如果可以的话。当然，你们可以投票支持……勋爵。假设、观点，即使你们正在读法律，只要你们现在承诺将来不执业。
[56:50] 因为我认为这符合他的立场。但所有那些，我记不清动议是什么了，让我看看。所有认为想从事法律实践的人不应该在大学学习法律的人。请举手。好的。所有持相反意见的人。请举手。谢谢。所以我认为主队获胜，但也许这是意料之中的。谢谢。改变主意我们需要知道有多少人在此过程中觉得他们改变了主意。
[57:30] 非常好。好了，我们到了。这就是我们这里有的思想开放的人。非常感谢你们的到来。非常好。谢谢。感谢帕特里克·埃利亚斯、萨姆普申勋爵和格雷厄姆·维尔戈今晚的到来。我要感谢你们所有人的到来，使这次活动成为现在的样子。对我们和学院来说，这是一个美好的夜晚。
[58:05] 我鼓励大家，拜托，可以的。外面有两层楼设有招待会。所以请留下来交流。我们有从六年级学生到非常资深的从业者以及法律学者的绝佳组合。所以——能再多继续一会儿这场讨论就太好了。谢谢。
查看英文原始字幕
[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.
在Vidleaf工作台中打开
搜索转录文本，选择行，复制带时间戳的引文，翻译。
署名
剑桥大学法学院（https://www.youtube.com/@cambridgelawfaculty）的《"希望从事法律实践的人不应在大学学习法律"？》，依据 CC BY 3.0（https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/）许可。源视频：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMR1NIEifWM。本页是该视频的文本转录，添加了段落分隔和时间戳；创作者与 Vidleaf 无关联，也不为其背书。Vidleaf 添加了 AI 标点和 AI 生成的摘要；原始措辞仍可在本页查看。
您是创作者或权利持有人吗？请求更正或移除：copyright@vidleaf.app（参见关于这些页面）。
最后更新于