Why LEEWS is so much more effective
than any other law school study aid.
(They're not even close!)
Because we alone recognize and address the problem described under THE PROBLEM respecting all law schools1. Moreover, we address the problem far more effectively than any law school, professor, or other study aid.
(E.g., students of famed Harvard criminal law professor and—rare among elite law school professors!—practicing attorney, Alan Dershowitz, exhibit the same wonderment, then excitement, as they evolve—finally!—from student/academic thinker to facsimile of [client] goal-oriented, pragmatic legal problem solver/thinker.)
We do not create geniuses of the law. ["Genius of the law," "gift for the law," "innate aptitude for the law" is all myth, nonsense, an excuse for ineffective instruction.] However, our students make the transition to legal thinker/learner while classmates don't. This provides an enormous advantage.
For example, LEEWS instructs that legal precepts—rules, principles, statutes, policy considerations (the why behind the law)—must not be thought about in abstraction (academically). Rather, all are potentially “tools” to assist (hypothetical) clients achieve practical goals—e.g., win a money award (or avoid same); obtain clear title to property; stay out of jail (put someone in); overcome a government regulation; fend off a hostile takeover; etc.
This shift in perspective and thinking is transformative and critical. (It is what law school should accomplish, but does not)
[Note: Client goals are certainly implicit in cases read/briefed. However, professors never frame discussion in practical terms of "What did the client want?”, “What was the client objective”, “What legal precepts (tools!) did the lawyer advance to achieve the client objective?" Rather, it's "What was the (legal) issue”, “What was the outcome (holding)?”, “What do you think about that?", "What change in facts might have altered the outcome?" (The latter question is designed to stimulate "lawyerlike thinking." It assists some students somewhat. However, as students have not been properly instructed in how, exactly, lawyers think, most fumble. They take notes they won't have time to review, nor make much sense of if they do.)]
In addition LEEWS inculcates several innovative, proven effective (for over 30 years!) systems. Each system is applicable to all law exams, especially the problematic "essay hypothetical" featured in virtually all first year courses (and many upper level courses).2
There is much much more. Most important is acquisition (finally!) of a lawyer's perspective and analytic approach. (This mindset is necessary to comprehend and effectively apply the systems.)
The result is a rush of confidence, of "ah-hah!," of even eagerness going forward. Given this new perspective, law school can be the stimulating, even enjoyable intellectual experience it should be (but isn't for most).
"He can't know what I want on my exam!" This is a typical criticism voiced by law professors. (“He” refers to LEEWS founder/instructor, Wentworth Miller.) Our response: "Professor. Do you want to see, coming off an exam page, someone knowledgeable in your subject, attuned to your preferences, paying close attention to facts you took the trouble to create, analyzing issues you want analyzed … as a competent lawyer might?" (What else would a professor want?)
Another unique LEEWS insight: All legal problem solving exercises—cases, briefs, motions, trials, essay and other type exams (everything!)—can be understood and approached in exactly the same way. (I.e., there is a common denominator afoot!) The only variable is the nature of legal tools—procedural, substantive—to be applied in solving the problem. (E.g., contracts versus property versus tort law, etc.)
Once this pivotal insight that gave birth to LEEWS is grasped, all legal problem solving becomes a predictable exercise to be approached in exactly the same way. (Yes. What we instruct is deep, different, wholly new. Also eminently practical and, with practice, easily applied to all exams in all subjects, no matter the professor, question, exercise posed.)
Lacking LEEWS instruction and insight, the great majority of law students—hard working, some perhaps smarter than LEEWS grad classmates (On paper! However, also too skeptical, too arrogant to investigate what we're about?!), but still academic learners/thinkers—stumble, fumble, expend energy in unproductive busywork. Ultimately, they write (type!) exams that are but a shadow of what a competent lawyer (or LEEWS grad) would produce.
Thus does LEEWS impart not just advantage, but grossly unfair advantage. And students know it. (Which is why they tell "only a close friend" or underclassman about LEEWS. Or a relative. 30+ years later the children, nieces, nephews of former students [now entering law school], are being referred to us!)
We take advantage of the ineffectiveness of law school teaching! (Hence, Gaming Emperor Law School.)
Any good lawyer exploits an advantage where an advantage is to be had.
1. Namely, utter failure of universal case method instruction (in yet another classroom setting) to transition academic thinker/learners to a reasonable approximation of (practicing) lawyer thinker/learners. (Those 1Ls exhibiting "lawyerlike" thinking skills in class and on exams [without LEEWS assistance] typically acquired same prior to law school.
2. A system for methodically, efficiently identifying "issues" in dense fact patterns ("hypotheticals"); a system for presenting analysis in concise paragraphs (roughly one per issue); a system of day-to-day, week-to-week preparation. (Respecting the latter, 2-4 line exam [not class!] focused case briefs; 30-50 page course outlines.)