How many black-letter law courses should one take per semester/year?

[Bachtowork]

Hi, I am in my second semester of 2L, and am unsure about what I should take. My first semester course selection wasn't very good, because I didn't ask for guidance from anyone and was indecisive. Currently, I am registered in 2 black-letter law courses (Evidence and admin law) and 3 paper/seminar courses. Should I be taking more black-letter courses? I am not great at preparing for and writing exams, and tend to do substantially better on papers and assignments, but I don't want to have too many "soft" courses. 

[Jumbie]

The two black-letter courses that you've mentioned (evidence and admin) are great, foundational course choices. I don't think that you've overloaded on seminar courses, especially given that you've noted that they are your strength. It's normal, even in 2L, to be indecisive with the sort of courses that you want to take. I would note, though, that taking these foundational black-letter courses can help you get a taste for the areas of law that you like and dislike.

You have two more semesters to zero in on areas that you develop an interest in. I think interest is the key word, though. Don't pick courses strictly because they're seminars, though I'm sure the boost that they provide to your GPA is of some value to you. If you feel good about your course selections this year, you can roll with them and reassess your black-letter course balance in third year, where "doing better" might not mean as much.

 

[Bachtowork]

2 hours ago, Jumbie said:

The two black-letter courses that you've mentioned (evidence and admin) are great, foundational course choices. I don't think that you've overloaded on seminar courses, especially given that you've noted that they are your strength. It's normal, even in 2L, to be indecisive with the sort of courses that you want to take. I would note, though, that taking these foundational black-letter courses can help you get a taste for the areas of law that you like and dislike.

You have two more semesters to zero in on areas that you develop an interest in. I think interest is the key word, though. Don't pick courses strictly because they're seminars, though I'm sure the boost that they provide to your GPA is of some value to you. If you feel good about your course selections this year, you can roll with them and reassess your black-letter course balance in third year, where "doing better" might not mean as much.

 

Thank you! I feel I may be able to do a bit better this semester if I only have 2 exams to worry about. Right now, there's only one area I have some interest in specializing in, but my school doesn't have any courses in it this term. After Dec exams last term, I realized that I wanted to take as little exam courses as possible; do you mean that I should try to take more black-letter courses in my last year, if I have articling lined up? 

[Jumbie]

18 hours ago, Bachtowork said:

After Dec exams last term, I realized that I wanted to take as little exam courses as possible; do you mean that I should try to take more black-letter courses in my last year, if I have articling lined up? 

Not necessarily. I meant that having articling lined up (and another year of study under your belt) might change your perspective on course selection. For example, I was much less concerned with "doing well" in my third year, and so I was much more willing to experiment with my course selection and take courses that were outside of my comfort zone. You might elect to do the opposite: I had friends interested in criminal law who took as many crim-related seminars as possible during their final year.

[myth000]

On 1/10/2022 at 6:33 PM, Bachtowork said:

Hi, I am in my second semester of 2L, and am unsure about what I should take. My first semester course selection wasn't very good, because I didn't ask for guidance from anyone and was indecisive. Currently, I am registered in 2 black-letter law courses (Evidence and admin law) and 3 paper/seminar courses. Should I be taking more black-letter courses? I am not great at preparing for and writing exams, and tend to do substantially better on papers and assignments, but I don't want to have too many "soft" courses. 

Unrelated but is Admin Law considered black letter law?  Somehow passed it this semester and found the concepts to not be as settled as other courses.

[Bachtowork]

2 hours ago, Jumbie said:

Not necessarily. I meant that having articling lined up (and another year of study under your belt) might change your perspective on course selection. For example, I was much less concerned with "doing well" in my third year, and so I was much more willing to experiment with my course selection and take courses that were outside of my comfort zone. You might elect to do the opposite: I had friends interested in criminal law who took as many crim-related seminars as possible during their final year.

Yeah, so far, I've been too afraid to go outside my comfort zone because of the grades issue. If I do well in 2L, then I can see myself wanting to experiment a bit. 

1 hour ago, myth000 said:

Unrelated but is Admin Law considered black letter law?  Somehow passed it this semester and found the concepts to not be as settled as other courses.

I'm not sure if I used the right term to describe it, I was mainly trying to distinguish between exam courses and paper/seminar courses that have more "fluff". I saw people on other forums, like TopLawSchools (US forum), call admin law a black letter course. 

[QueensGrad]

My own totally subjective, personal opinion is that you should take more black letter classes with exams rather than niche courses with essays. Assuming you have a job lined up and do not need to worry about grades as much. 

It might be controversial, but my own view is you will get a better education for your future career if you take that approach as compared to loading up on paper based courses, which tend to be more academic/theoretical, a deep dive into narrow and/or niche issues, and where you may not even need to do the readings to write your final paper. These paper-based classes tend to be less a matter of learning the law and/or things useful for your future job, and more a mixed bag of academia-focused public policy, political science, and sociology, IMO. 

At least, this was the case at QL. Not to mention the curve was far more forgiving in these "seminar" classes, with up to 35% (with 5% deviation permitted) allowed to receive an A range grade, and a B+ average was allowed rather than a B average.

[t3ctonics]

I don't think there's any particular number to shoot for. I am with @QueensGrad in that if you intend to practice law you should take courses relevant to your career. You need to at least get the foundational courses in for whatever area you intend to practice in. But depending on how focused you are on a particular area of practice, you might not actually need a whole lot of upper year courses. For example, someone set on doing criminal law probably doesn't need to take secured financing or international commercial transactions. Likewise, someone dead set on doing mergers and acquisitions probably doesn't need criminal or family law courses.

I took mostly black letter law classes, and all the practical skill classes that were available. I only did a couple of seminars and paper-based classes, and looking back I wish I'd done more of those instead of some of the black letter law classes. I developed a general understanding of the law in many different areas, including areas I never intended to practice in. The few seminar and paper courses I took were a lot more interesting and engaging, and I developed a much deeper understanding of those areas. I might as well have done some more of that, rather than learning areas of law I knew I was never going to practice in just because they were "black letter law."

Even some of the more academic or policy-based courses can be helpful in practice. They can give you a helpful contextual understanding of the area, as well as the policy choices that have gone into making the law what it is - and how it might change in the future. Some might just be navel-gazing though. But some people are into that.

If you're curious, I cannot remember ever applying anything from my international commercial transactions and family law courses. There are also numerous courses where I did learn something that I used at some point in practice, but it was something absolutely superficial that I could have gotten from skimming a textbook or reviewing the relevant legislation. Trusts, secured financing, commercial relationships, and conflict of laws all fall into this category for me. I did find those classes interesting though, and some of these are the core of some lawyers' practices.

18 hours ago, myth000 said:

Unrelated but is Admin Law considered black letter law?  Somehow passed it this semester and found the concepts to not be as settled as other courses.

Yes, various aspects of administrative law have changed over the years, most significantly issues around standard of review. That said, the foundational principles (e.g. duty of procedural fairness) have held pretty steady.

I'd consider any course that focuses on teaching what the law is in a given area to be a "black letter law" course. That includes some seminars and paper-based courses, the kind that are a deep dive into an area of law. But most law seminars I've seen involve policy or meta-law topics such as access to justice, law reform, and legal theory, or examine the intersection of law and other fields or topics, such as law and economics, poverty, culture, etc. 

[Bachtowork]

10 hours ago, QueensGrad said:

My own totally subjective, personal opinion is that you should take more black letter classes with exams rather than niche courses with essays. Assuming you have a job lined up and do not need to worry about grades as much. 

It might be controversial, but my own view is you will get a better education for your future career if you take that approach as compared to loading up on paper based courses, which tend to be more academic/theoretical, a deep dive into narrow and/or niche issues, and where you may not even need to do the readings to write your final paper. These paper-based classes tend to be less a matter of learning the law and/or things useful for your future job, and more a mixed bag of academia-focused public policy, political science, and sociology, IMO. 

At least, this was the case at QL. Not to mention the curve was far more forgiving in these "seminar" classes, with up to 35% (with 5% deviation permitted) allowed to receive an A range grade, and a B+ average was allowed rather than a B average.

I was feeling kind of bad about taking 3 paper courses this term, esp since I took courses in some rather niche areas of law last term (like refugee law). It's the same at my school, the paper courses don't teach you much about the law and you could easily skip most of the readings. The problem is that the black letter classes that still have space right now (taxation, business associations, secured transactions, etc) don't seem to be relevant to what I want to practice - I am interested in public interest/non profits. Do you think it's still better to take one of these courses? 

[Bachtowork]

9 hours ago, t3ctonics said:

I don't think there's any particular number to shoot for. I am with @QueensGrad in that if you intend to practice law you should take courses relevant to your career. You need to at least get the foundational courses in for whatever area you intend to practice in. But depending on how focused you are on a particular area of practice, you might not actually need a whole lot of upper year courses. For example, someone set on doing criminal law probably doesn't need to take secured financing or international commercial transactions. Likewise, someone dead set on doing mergers and acquisitions probably doesn't need criminal or family law courses.

I took mostly black letter law classes, and all the practical skill classes that were available. I only did a couple of seminars and paper-based classes, and looking back I wish I'd done more of those instead of some of the black letter law classes. I developed a general understanding of the law in many different areas, including areas I never intended to practice in. The few seminar and paper courses I took were a lot more interesting and engaging, and I developed a much deeper understanding of those areas. I might as well have done some more of that, rather than learning areas of law I knew I was never going to practice in just because they were "black letter law."

Even some of the more academic or policy-based courses can be helpful in practice. They can give you a helpful contextual understanding of the area, as well as the policy choices that have gone into making the law what it is - and how it might change in the future. Some might just be navel-gazing though. But some people are into that.

If you're curious, I cannot remember ever applying anything from my international commercial transactions and family law courses. There are also numerous courses where I did learn something that I used at some point in practice, but it was something absolutely superficial that I could have gotten from skimming a textbook or reviewing the relevant legislation. Trusts, secured financing, commercial relationships, and conflict of laws all fall into this category for me. I did find those classes interesting though, and some of these are the core of some lawyers' practices.

Yes, various aspects of administrative law have changed over the years, most significantly issues around standard of review. That said, the foundational principles (e.g. duty of procedural fairness) have held pretty steady.

I'd consider any course that focuses on teaching what the law is in a given area to be a "black letter law" course. That includes some seminars and paper-based courses, the kind that are a deep dive into an area of law. But most law seminars I've seen involve policy or meta-law topics such as access to justice, law reform, and legal theory, or examine the intersection of law and other fields or topics, such as law and economics, poverty, culture, etc. 

I am planning on practicing law, but am not set on a particular area yet. I am interested in labour law, but my school doesn't have any courses in it this term. I am also interested in public interest/non profits (which is probably not focused enough). Other than evidence and admin law, I really don't know what would be relevant to my areas of interest - as I mentioned earlier, tax, business associations, and secured transactions still have space, but I don't know how relevant or useful they would be for what I want to do; I don't want to practice tax law or any kind of corporate law. 

Yeah, I figured I would do most of the learning on the job, but that relevant courses may be necessary in order to show a genuine interest to employers. My school's course selection isn't very large or diverse - I've been having trouble finding relevant courses that would look good to employers and prepare me for my future job. I wish I could take some skills courses this term, they are either full or conflict with Evidence, something I definitely want to take this term as it is a requirement for a clinic. 

[QueensGrad]

6 hours ago, Bachtowork said:

I was feeling kind of bad about taking 3 paper courses this term, esp since I took courses in some rather niche areas of law last term (like refugee law). It's the same at my school, the paper courses don't teach you much about the law and you could easily skip most of the readings. The problem is that the black letter classes that still have space right now (taxation, business associations, secured transactions, etc) don't seem to be relevant to what I want to practice - I am interested in public interest/non profits. Do you think it's still better to take one of these courses? 

I definitely recommend Tax and Business Associations for anyone who isn't going into something like refugee or criminal law. I think they are foundational courses and both will probably have some substantive relevance to any future work you do with non-profits (which are certain forms of business associations, after all -- we learned about in my bus ass class!) I am no expert but Tax is seems like an issue that non-profits have to constantly deal with (I am thinking donor gifts, whether certain income of a non-profit is taxable or not, etc.) 

 

Edit - tax law is also relevant to employment law practice. 

Edited January 13, 2022 by QueensGrad

[t3ctonics]

5 hours ago, Bachtowork said:

I am planning on practicing law, but am not set on a particular area yet. I am interested in labour law, but my school doesn't have any courses in it this term. I am also interested in public interest/non profits (which is probably not focused enough). Other than evidence and admin law, I really don't know what would be relevant to my areas of interest - as I mentioned earlier, tax, business associations, and secured transactions still have space, but I don't know how relevant or useful they would be for what I want to do; I don't want to practice tax law or any kind of corporate law. 

Yeah, I figured I would do most of the learning on the job, but that relevant courses may be necessary in order to show a genuine interest to employers. My school's course selection isn't very large or diverse - I've been having trouble finding relevant courses that would look good to employers and prepare me for my future job. I wish I could take some skills courses this term, they are either full or conflict with Evidence, something I definitely want to take this term as it is a requirement for a clinic. 

Most of what I do is labour law. Definitely take any labour courses that are available, as well as human rights courses (don't worry about international for labour law, what you need to know about are the national and provincial human rights codes). Tax can be useful for labour, particularly in devising settlement terms. Evidence is useful for any litigation of course, though labour tends to be pretty fast and loose with the rules of evidence, particularly in arbitrations. If your school has an advanced contracts or statutory interpretation courses those could be useful. 

As @QueensGrad said, tax and business associations are also relevant to work with non-profits. I've worked closely with a few, and they all needed professional help to not jeopardize their non-profit status or run afoul of the Income Tax Act. I'm no tax or corporate governance specialist, but I was able to identify potential issues and point them to actual tax experts. If I had no familiarity with corporate or income tax law I might not have picked up on those. This may not be super important if you're planning on being in private practice because there will usually be a team with all the relevant expertise, but if you want to be in-house counsel you'll need to at least be able to spot potential issues so you can ask outside counsel for expert advice.

[Bachtowork]

5 hours ago, QueensGrad said:

I definitely recommend Tax and Business Associations for anyone who isn't going into something like refugee or criminal law. I think they are foundational courses and both will probably have some substantive relevance to any future work you do with non-profits (which are certain forms of business associations, after all -- we learned about in my bus ass class!) I am no expert but Tax is seems like an issue that non-profits have to constantly deal with (I am thinking donor gifts, whether certain income of a non-profit is taxable or not, etc.) 

 

Edit - tax law is also relevant to employment law practice. 

Thanks! That's good to know! It was hard for me to recognize whether or not a course would be useful, so good thing I asked. I can only take one of them this term, since I also need to take admin, evidence, and get my major paper requirement done. I was initially put off by tax because I heard people say it's very hard and would likely negatively affect your gpa, so I wasn't sure if it'd be worth it, but since it's relevant to most areas (and I'm most likely not going into crim or refugee law), I will take it and just hope for the best, the prof seems really good. 

[Bachtowork]

5 hours ago, t3ctonics said:

Most of what I do is labour law. Definitely take any labour courses that are available, as well as human rights courses (don't worry about international for labour law, what you need to know about are the national and provincial human rights codes). Tax can be useful for labour, particularly in devising settlement terms. Evidence is useful for any litigation of course, though labour tends to be pretty fast and loose with the rules of evidence, particularly in arbitrations. If your school has an advanced contracts or statutory interpretation courses those could be useful. 

As @QueensGrad said, tax and business associations are also relevant to work with non-profits. I've worked closely with a few, and they all needed professional help to not jeopardize their non-profit status or run afoul of the Income Tax Act. I'm no tax or corporate governance specialist, but I was able to identify potential issues and point them to actual tax experts. If I had no familiarity with corporate or income tax law I might not have picked up on those. This may not be super important if you're planning on being in private practice because there will usually be a team with all the relevant expertise, but if you want to be in-house counsel you'll need to at least be able to spot potential issues so you can ask outside counsel for expert advice.

Thanks! I will keep all that in mind! Hopefully my school will offer more courses in labour law next term, as well as courses in human rights (don't see any this term). It's quite frustrating, it seems easiest to specialize in areas like environmental, corporate, criminal, and Indigenous law at my school. At least now I know there are more black letter courses I can take that are relevant, I was initially wary about taking tax because of things I read online about it, but it seems really useful. Business associations used to be a required course at my school, so they must've considered it a foundational course. 

In-house counsel sounds great, but I heard it can be very competitive, that there aren't many opportunities. May I ask, what kind of work do you do? 

[t3ctonics]

15 minutes ago, Bachtowork said:

In-house counsel sounds great, but I heard it can be very competitive, that there aren't many opportunities. May I ask, what kind of work do you do? 

I'm currently in-house and I do mostly labour and employment. I also do various other completely unrelated things as needed (environmental law, for example) which is not uncommon. Lots of in-house lawyers end up having to do a pretty wide variety of work. 

[Bachtowork]

2 hours ago, t3ctonics said:

I'm currently in-house and I do mostly labour and employment. I also do various other completely unrelated things as needed (environmental law, for example) which is not uncommon. Lots of in-house lawyers end up having to do a pretty wide variety of work. 

That's awesome!