•  
  •  
 

Abstract

The role of law in society is complex and often intersects with evolving societal norms, politics, technology, etc. Despite this complexity, students, especially our current Gen-Z students, enroll in law school, hoping to enact positive change within their communities through the legal system. As noted by recent studies, law students' reasons for attending law school have shifted from a “desire to have a challenging and rewarding career” to a focus on “helping others or uplifting their communit[ies]” and addressing “social justice” issues. With this change in purpose, students' expectations about the education they will receive in law school have shifted, leaving them disillusioned by the perceived limitations of the law to create meaningful change in their communities when advocacy is restricted to precedent and theory. To assist law schools better meet students' needs, this article advocates rethinking the traditional legal writing curriculum to better prepare law students—especially those from Generation Z—with the skills necessary for impactful, client-focused advocacy to serve marginalized communities more effectively. While legal education has traditionally focused on binding precedent as the basis of persuasive writing, this piece emphasizes the often-underutilized role of non-precedential writings, such as dissents, concurrences, amicus briefs, and interdisciplinary sources, as powerful tools for persuasion. Using landmark cases like Roper v. Simmons, Obergefell v. Hodges, and Brown v. Board of Education, this article demonstrates how unconventional sources have been utilized in real-world situations to influence legal decisions. Moreover, it also suggests a pedagogical shift that incorporates these materials into first-year legal writing courses, specifically in the persuasive writing unit, to help foster effective lawyering and support the development of future social engineers.

Download

Share

COinS