Empirical Inquiry Twenty-Five Years After The Lawyering Process

Authors

Stefan H. Krieger, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra UniversityFollow
Richard K. Neumann Jr., Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra UniversityFollow

Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Clinical Law Review

Publication Date

2003

Abstract

One of the many ways in which The Lawyering Process was a pioneering book was its extensive reliance on empirical research about lawyers, lawyering, and activities analogous to some or another aspect of lawyering. To what extent has the clinical field accepted Gary Bellow and Bea Moulton's invitation to explore empirical studies generated outside legal education and perhaps engage in empirical work ourselves to understand lawyering more deeply? Although some clinicians have done good empirical work, our field as a whole has not really accepted Gary and Bea's invitation. This article explains empirical ways of thinking and working; discusses some of the mistakes law scholars (not only clinicians) make when dealing with empirical work; explores some of the reasons why empiricism has encountered difficulty in law schools; and suggests that empiricism might in some ways improve our teaching in clinics.

Recommended Citation

Stefan H. Krieger and Richard K. Neumann Jr., Empirical Inquiry Twenty-Five Years After The Lawyering Process, 10 Clinical L. Rev. 349 (2003)
Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/155