« Apprenticeship as Part of Legal Education | Main | Forum on Legal Education in a Networked World: video, audio, text posted »

December 12, 2006

Prominent profs affiliating with prominent firms

Who says established and renown law professors cannot be innovative?  As detailed here at the WSJ Law Blog, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe has has continued a new innovate consulting trend by engineering a deal with Akin Gump.  As the WSJ Blog notes:

Akin Gump's announcement continues the trend of firms cutting various arrangements with prominent law professors. Last year, Stanford's Kathleen Sullivan, a protege of Tribe, joined Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges's Silicon Valley office in an of counsel position.  Earlier this year, UCLA's Eugene Volokh affiliated with Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw.

December 12, 2006 in Service -- legal profession | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c8ccf53ef00d834ce72d153ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Prominent profs affiliating with prominent firms:

Comments

Well this ties back to the question poased by DAB on 11/29: Should law professors be required to practice? The fact that poor Prof. Tribe is taking a beating in the WSJ blog's comments for his comment about getting a beer in the late afternoon with colleagues (the point being that no practicing lawyer has the leisure of undertaking such an activity) demonstrates, at a surface level, some need for professors to stay in touch with daily practice. But based on the WSJ's very impressionistic sketch, I can't tell if Tribe will be "practicing" in any way significantly differently than he already does. Seems to me the value of professors practicing is to encounter the same kinds of issues that students will one day see.

(BTW, in response to the overall tone of comments on the WSJ blog, (a) I'm sure glad LSI has a different readership, and (b) in accord with my presumed classmate "HLS2001," I found Prof. Tribe indeed one of the least arrogant and most humane professors I have ever encountered).

Posted by: Gene Koo | Dec 12, 2006 7:00:00 PM

Well this ties back to the question poased by DAB on 11/29: Should law professors be required to practice? The fact that poor Prof. Tribe is taking a beating in the WSJ blog's comments for his comment about getting a beer in the late afternoon with colleagues (the point being that no practicing lawyer has the leisure of undertaking such an activity) demonstrates, at a surface level, some need for professors to stay in touch with daily practice. But based on the WSJ's very impressionistic sketch, I can't tell if Tribe will be "practicing" in any way significantly differently than he already does. Seems to me the value of professors practicing is to encounter the same kinds of issues that students will one day see.

(BTW, in response to the overall tone of comments on the WSJ blog, (a) I'm sure glad LSI has a different readership, and (b) in accord with my presumed classmate "HLS2001," I found Prof. Tribe indeed one of the least arrogant and most humane professors I have ever encountered).

Posted by: Gene Koo | Dec 12, 2006 7:00:55 PM

Shouldn't we chalk up Tribe's "afternoon beer" to just having a tin ear and using outdated cliches? One parnter I worked with was always taling about "sitting around the cracker barrel." I've never seen a cracker barrel and I've never had afternoon beers at the firm.

Posted by: not a diatribe | Dec 12, 2006 7:56:47 PM

Post a comment