thing more than allow men to play they are lawyers. Going through the motions of a trial, even under the supervision and criticism of a competent teacher, is in itself a comparatively unproductive process.

On the contrary the practice court should be a means and method for actually coordinating the various branches of procedure. It should furnish an opportunity for the students to marshal the principles of procedure as studied theoretically and employ them in analysing and solving specific problems of litigation. It should teach a method of attack. To do this it must provide much more than a court room, a judge and a jury.

To produce a law-school trial which shall serve a useful educational purpose, there must be two things; first, a set of facts must be developed analagous to the facts in a litigated controversy, and, second, there must be a thorough and technical preparation of those facts in all their legal possibilities, by students representing both sides of the controversy.

The first may be done by arranging actual transactions among students selected from the school, and carrying them out in such a way that issues of fact respecting them shall develop. Suppose a dozen men are called upon to serve as actors and witnesses in a case. The character under which each appears, such as that of a contractor or a bank cashier, is assumed. In that capacity each proceeds to take the part assigned, carrying on conversations, executing papers, writing letters, telephoning, or doing whatever is requisite to fill out the schedule of events which the instructor has devised to raise suitable issues of fact. It is easy for the actors to be coached as to what to do and say. After the words are spoken or the acts are performed, they become as properly the subject of future investigation as do any of those events which form the basis of actual law suits. The actors can truthfully testify as to what they did; the witnesses may relate what they saw and heard. The case exists only in the doings of those actors, and students assigned to the case as attorneys have access to the same sort of evidence that the practising lawyer deals with. The case is in every sense an actual case, though artificially produced. It is not assumed. Practically everything that will be shown in evidence will have actually happened.

Having created this foundation for the action, the preparation of the case proceeds along strictly professional lines. And it is here that the chief educational value of the work appears. The theory of the prosecution and defense must be worked out, the pleadings must be drawn, the evidence must be arranged in proper form for orderly and logical presentation in court, the rules respecting proof must be carefully gone over to insure against exclusion at the trial, the probabilities of objections being raised at the trial must be estimated and contingencies prepared for, instructions properly covering the law of the case must be drawn, the feasibility of employing special interrogatories must be determined, the qualifications of the jurors must be investigated and grounds for challenge fixed upon. In doing all these things the student is really employing the principles of procedure. He is given a case at large. The entire responsibility for it rests upon him. He must work it out from beginning to end, and his work is essentially a lawyer's work. It calls in question all the knowledge of the principles of procedure which he has obtained in the course of his previous study. He draws his pleadings with a view to his evidence; he prepares his evidence in the light of his pleadings.

His case is no moot question of abstract right, but a living issue to be tried and tested in the delicate balances of the court room. Before him stretches the long road which leads to the jury's verdict, with its dangers and pitfalls, its sharp declivities, its sudden turns. To travel it successfully calls for all his knowledge and skill, all his foresight, alertness and sound judgment. He must weigh the possibilities involved in this choice or that, the advantages of success, the consequences of failure. And in every problem which throws its shadow across his path, is involved a coordination of the rules of law and the rules of procedure-of the substance and method. Such a discipline is typical of the lawyer's tasks. To meet it successfully is the test of professional preparation.

This preparation may be easily supervised and criticized. A trial brief may be required, which shall contain the results of all the work done preliminary to the trial. Such a brief should contain a clear statement of the theory of the cause of action or de

fense relied upon, fortified by ample authorities, together with a close analysis of the pleadings filed, to demonstrate both the formal and substantial sufficiency of the pleadings under the theory adopted. It should contain a statement of the possible positions open to the other side, and an analysis of the adversary's pleadings to show their sufficiency or insufficiency, and a specification of the available methods for raising any objections which this analysis may disclose. It should contain a full outline of the evidence available in support of all the issues made in the pleadings, and the witnesses should be listed, each name to be followed with a schedule of the facts to be proved by him. There should be specific references to all doubtful points connected with the admissibility of evidence, and methods of proof, with authorities in support of the positions taken by council. There should be a full set of instructions to the jury, each followed by authorities and reasons in support of its form and substance.

Such a trial brief is just what every lawyer should have before him in every case which he tries. To prepare it requires a close and intelligent study of every phase of the case, and represents legal effort highly beneficial to the student and strictly professional in its scope. No student will ordinarily fail to understand his case in all its phases after working out a satisfactory trial brief along these lines.

The trial itself, when it finally takes place, is merely the realization and execution of the plans prepared and exhibited in the trial brief. A jury of students can easily be had, who will themselves derive a large benefit from their critical observation of the performances of their classmates. The case will proceed before the jury like an ordinary law case.

But the trial itself should not be looked upon as a mere imitation of an actual law suit. As an imitation it amounts to nothing. What the students need is an opportunity to put their knowledge of law and procedure to actual use, and to avail themselves beneficially of those principles about which they obtained a theoretical understanding in their class-room courses. To that end the instructor who presides in the court should not forget that he is

instructing students, not impersonating a judge. He should keep the case moving along proper lines. He should criticize and correct freely. If mistakes occur and are not noticed by the men trying the case, they should be promptly suggested by the judge, and the point involved may be thus brought home very forcibly to the student, with all the flavor of a concrete setting. Frequent questions on the part of the judge as to principles involved in the various steps taken during the course of the trial, will emphasize and direct sharp attention to the logical ground work of the procedural development exemplified in the case. A general criticism of salient features of the trial may well follow the rendition of the verdict.

A practice court conducted along these lines is not an appeal to the spectacular, but a serious educational institution. It is pedagogically sound. It is entirely practicable under the conditions prevalent in modern law schools. It stirs the students to their best efforts, and gives them correct ideas about procedure. It is the only method so far devised for teaching the technique of the profession in a concrete way. It is to the law school what the clinic is to the medical school or the shop to the school of engineering. In short it presents a synthetic grouping of legal ideas about the trial as the logical center of legal activity.

The law schools have been too unsystematic with their whole procedural program. They have considered procedure courses as an unscholarly necessity, a form of surrender to popular demands. In common law pleading, which is everywhere taught, the emphasis has been too much laid on the forms of action and the historical aspects of the subject, thus making it a sort of dumping ground for the history of the common law, instead of viewing it as a highly articulated and logical process for developing a foundation for the trial of issues. A broad curriculum would include pleading, both civil and criminal, evidence, trial practice, and appellate procedure, followed by practice court work as a summation or integration of the other branches. Careful instruction along these lines ought to accomplish substantial results in preparing students to do the thing for which the Bar

primarily exists, namely to practice law. The law schools have an opportunity to do a great work in raising the standards of practice which all admit are so low in the United States, and in doing something to compensate the American Bar for the want of that procedural specializing which makes English legal administration the envy of the world.