Commentary

The Case Method in Legal Education Asian Journal of Legal Education

5(2) 182–185
© 2018 The West Bengal National
University of Juridical Sciences
SAGE Publications
sagepub.in/home.nav
Upinder Dhar1 DOI: 10.1177/2322005818780754
http://journals.sagepub.com/home/ale
Santosh Dhar1

Abstract
Each doctrine has a history. In the case of law, Langdell has argued that students would be better
educated if they were asked to draw their own conclusions about the meaning of judicial decisions.
Case studies provide students with an overview of the main issue; background of the institution,
industry and individuals involved; and the events that had led to the problem or decision. Faculty may
assign questions prior to class to facilitate the students to focus on certain important issues. Principles
of law are taught by making the students analyse abridgments of appellate cases in combination with
the Socratic method.

Introduction
The case method in legal education was introduced by Christopher Columbus Langdell, who was dean
of Harvard Law School from 1870 to 1895. Langdell conceived of a way to systematize and simplify
legal education by focusing on previous cases that extended principles or doctrines. Each doctrine,
Langdell argued, have assumed its present shape gradually. His beliefs differed from those of his
colleagues who followed the lecture method that has been prevalent approach for teaching law school
students since the nineteenth century. So far, teachers have interpreted the meaning of various court
verdicts on their own without offering any significant opportunity to the students to do so. The case
method, on the other hand, has forced students to read, analyse and interpret cases on their own.
Langdell opined that law students would be better educated if they were asked to reach their own
conclusions about the meaning of judicial decisions. His first casebook, A Selection of Cases on the
Law of Contracts, was a collection of settled cases that illustrated the state of contract law. Students
read the cases and came prepared to analyse them during Socratic question-and-answer sessions in class.
The case method uses a court decision to exemplify principles of law, and employs ‘hub-and-spoke’
discussion between faculty and students.
The Harvard Business School’s case study approach grew out of the Langdellian method. But instead
of using established case law, business professors chose real-life examples from the business world to
highlight and analyse business principles. The Harvard Business School-style case studies typically

1
Shri Vaishnav Vidyapeeth Vishwavidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India.

Corresponding author:
Upinder Dhar, Vice Chancellor, Shri Vaishnav Vidyapeeth Vishwavidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India.
E-mails: vc@svvv.edu.in; upinderdhar@gmail.com
Dhar and Dhar 183

present the situation from the point of view of a manager or business leader embroiled in dilemma. Case
studies provide readers with an overview of the main issue; background of the institution, industry and
individuals involved; and the events that led to the problem or decision at hand. Cases are based on
interviews or public sources; sometimes, case studies are disguised versions of actual events or composites
based on the faculty or authors’ experience and knowledge of the subject. Cases are used to illustrate a
particular set of learning objectives; as in real life, rarely are there precise answers to the dilemma at hand.
Case studies engage readers in active learning. It involves participant-led presentations, exercises,
role plays, debates, guest speakers and informational lectures, and is appropriate for both undergraduate
and postgraduate students pursuing legal education, executive education and professional development.
It typically requires at least one class session to fully implement, with multi-player role plays requiring
more time; and may incorporate additional readings or multimedia. The students are put straight in the
shoes of real people wrestling with real dilemmas; argue and defend their advice for the protagonist;
learn how to approach and solve problems; and interact with their peers through debate, presentations
and ad hoc role plays.
Faculty may assign questions prior to class to facilitate the students to focus on particular issues;
identify students who hold opposing views and ask questions to stimulate debate; assign students to
stakeholder groups with different points of view of the situation; encourage input from all sides until the
students uncover most or all of the learning points; and lead students to an ‘aha’ moment during which
conventional wisdom is precipitated by deeper and more seasoned insights.

Significance of Case Method

The case method is a system of instructions or study of law focused upon the analysis of court opinions
rather than lectures and textbooks. In the beginning, Langdell’s ideas were rejected by students, law
professors and attorneys alike. They viewed it as chaotic as compared to organized lectures. These critics
believed that instead of soliciting law students’ opinions regarding cases, faculty should simply state
their own interpretations. Apprehending that they were not learning from Langdell’s method, students
started dropping out of his class, leaving him with only a few students. Enrolment in the Harvard Law
School decreased dramatically, because of the concern over Langdell’s case method and the alumni even
called for his dismissal. But the president of Harvard University, Charles W. Eliot, supported Langdell
and his case method, which allowed him to stand with the criticism long enough to prove the case
method’s success.
As time passed, Langdell’s students turned out to be skilled and successful attorneys. Consequently,
his critics started showing believe in his method of teaching, and the case method soon became the
dominant teaching method at Harvard. By the early twentieth century, most US law schools adopted the
case method, and it remained the primary pedagogical technique of legal education throughout the twen-
tieth century and beyond. The case method is usually coupled with a type of classroom teaching called
the Socratic method. Through the Socratic method, students orally respond to a series of difficult ques-
tions that have been designed to help them gain further insight into the meaning of law.
In this way, the students develop the skill of critical analysis. They learn to discern relevant from
irrelevant facts, distinguish between seemingly similar facts and issues and analogize between dissimilar
facts and issues. The case method offers certain benefits. For one, cases are usually interesting. They
involve real people with real problems and therefore they tend to stimulate students more than the text-
books which only present hypothetical problems. The case method also facilitates students to develop
the ability to read and analyse cases, which is a crucial skill for attorneys.
184 Asian Journal of Legal Education 5(2)

The students learn to reduce cases to four basic components: the facts of the controversy, the legal
issue that the court decides, the holding or the legal resolution that the court reaches and the reasoning
that the court uses to explain its decision. The students, especially in their first year of legal study, often
outline these components in written case briefs, to which they can refer during classes and while preparing
for exams. Another advantage of the case method is that it teaches, by example, the system of legal prec-
edence. By reading cases, students learn how and why judges adhere, or do not adhere, to law developed
in previous cases. The students also learn how judges have the discretion to create law by construing
statutes or constitutions.

Limitations of Case Method

Limitations of case method are as follows:

1. The case method still continues to face criticism. One criticism focuses on law school examina-
tions. Generally, law students are tested only once in each term. They face enormous pressure to
perform well on these examinations since their single score on it usually constitutes their entire
grade for the semester. It is difficult to test analysis skills, so often these examinations test the
students’ ability to spot legal issues and apply legal rules. Therefore, although faculty members
try to teach case analysis skills, students tend to focus on simple learning rules of law in the hope
of getting good grades. This defeats the purpose of case method.
2. The case method may be unpopular with law students owing to the amount of reading it requires.
It is not uncommon for law faculty to assign 20 to 30 pages of reading, containing excerpts from
four or five cases, each night for each class. Some law faculty are of the opinion that students
learn to analyse cases within the first few months of their training, and that thereafter the case
method becomes ineffective because students lose enthusiasm and interest in reading cases.
3. Another limitation concerns the role of casebooks. These books generally contain cases or case
excerpts as well as some explanatory text. They are most often compiled by law faculty, who
arrange the cases to show legal development or illustrate the meaning of legal principles. These
casebooks provide only a small sample of cases, the vast majority of them being appellate-level
decisions. Thus, the law students usually receive little or no exposure to decisions of trial courts.
Some authors have observed that students therefore miss critical elements of a lawyer’s initial
role: discovering and shaping facts and determining legal strategies to present to the court at the
trial level.
4. Students do not see legal conflicts until they graduate and begin practicing law. Law schools are
increasingly trying to overcome this problem by offering instructions in basic lawyering skills.
For example, classes in trial advocacy allow students to conduct mock jury trials. Other courses
teach client-counselling skills, document-drafting skills and oral argument skills.

Overcoming Limitations
The case method can be balanced with other teaching methods. The Socratic method and the case method
are two different approaches. The latter teaches to determine through analysis of appellate court cases,
whereas the Socratic dialogue refers to a series of questions asked by the faculty which lead students to
the contents. The Socratic method facilitates the students in learning how to analyse the relevant issues.
Dhar and Dhar 185

Regular practise helps the students to understand, blend, apply and assess legal rules. The students are
benefited even if they track the dialogue between faculty and other students passively.
Very few law faculty members use the Socratic method in the ‘pure’ form. Rather, they use the case
method in a manner that leads to questioning students to help them derive rules from various appellate
cases. The mixing of the case method and the Socratic method presents students with a uniform informa-
tion through assigned readings and oral instructions in the faculty-controlled time frame. Principles of
law are taught by making the students analyse abridgments of appellate cases in combination with the
Socratic method of questioning the students. To conclude, the blending of the case method and the
Socratic method develops among the students the skill to think like a lawyer, to understand the cases in
the light of the rules of law; it stimulates the real environment to facilitate the students to apply the law
in real situations; illustrates through analysis and synthesis of cases and rules that law is a growing
doctrine; puts the students into an active learning mode wherein the students are persuaded to apply
knowledge, their understanding to analyse and solve the problems; and makes it more stimulating
and interesting for the participating students in comparison to other methods. The case method in
conjunction with Socratic dialogue is used by faculty members with an objective to help students develop
their legal skills.