Nothing is static-nor is legal education. Law being an instrument and creation of social change at the same time, legal environment changes with the change in the society. And society changes with the advancement of time. It would not be wrong to say that every second the legal system goes through some change or other. Some changes are made by courts, some by legislature, but most by the natural forces-human behaviour, perceptions about law, natural climate etc. do have some or other bearing on the legal system of the country.
As some realists say law is like a living organism. Its growth-whether direct or collateral is as amazing as the development of the Universe. Along with the growth of law, the legal professional also needs to equip himself with new tools for survival. Traditionally law is regarded as a self study subject. What ever be the jurisdiction, law schools could never boast that they teach the students a-z of law. Nor could they boast that the entire basics of law could be imparted during the students tenure in law school. What the best of the law schools can claim is that they are able to equip the students with an outlook which would help the students to understand the law, if they have time to devote for law.
This is exactly where the legal education differs from other education streams. A doctor get most of his training from the medical school, and engineer or a science/arts/history student gets his basics from the engineering school or basic graduate school, but a lawyer never gets any skill from the law school. What he gets is an approach and an aptitude for law, which he has to horn himself. Perhaps this is what many law students do not understand while undergoing a law course. Most of the students join law courses with an intention to learn law-which many law schools try to deliver, but fail miserably because of the ever changing facet of law.
