To make a man a good lawyer is to make him something more than a lawyer.

When we think about law school, what often comes to mind is a rigorous environment where students memorize legal rules, study case precedents, and learn to “think like a lawyer.” But what if this traditional approach is missing the bigger picture? In his thought-provoking article “On Teaching Law,” Lon L. Fuller argues that the way law is taught needs a major overhaul.

Instead of preparing students to merely fit into an established framework, Fuller envisions a legal education that fosters creativity, adaptability, and a broader way of thinking—one that’s better suited for a world where the law is constantly evolving.

Fuller highlights a core issue in legal education: it’s easy to explain how law is taught but harder to pinpoint why it’s taught that way. He criticizes the tendency of law schools to confine students within a rigid, pre-established way of thinking. Sure, it may make students comfortable in a familiar framework, but what happens when they face an entirely new kind of legal problem?

Law is not static; it grows and changes with society. Fuller argues that if law schools want to truly prepare students for their futures, they must teach them to think beyond the orthodox. Instead of just training students to follow what’s already been established, legal education should inspire them to explore alternative perspectives and come up with creative solutions to the challenges they’ve never seen before.

For Fuller, creativity is the key to effective legal education. He believes law teachers should do more than lecture students about statutes and rules. Instead, they should create a space for open discussion where students can share their own insights, ask questions, and challenge existing ideas.

This kind of classroom environment not only makes learning more engaging but also equips students to think critically and creatively. Fuller emphasizes that the role of a teacher should not be to impose their ideas but to nurture independent thinking. Students should feel encouraged to approach legal problems in ways that consider all possible angles and outcomes—not just the ones that fit neatly into tradition.

In Fuller’s time, legal education focused on a relatively narrow range of subjects, like contracts and torts. Today, the field has exploded to include areas like intellectual property, environmental law, and even tech-driven topics like artificial intelligence and cybersecurity. With such a broad scope, the need for flexible and innovative thinking has never been greater.

Fuller warns that sticking to rigid teaching methods risks creating lawyers who are hesitant and ill-prepared to address unfamiliar challenges. On the other hand, encouraging creativity can help students confidently navigate these ever-changing legal landscapes.

One of Fuller’s more personal reflections is that he’s learned a great deal about law from his students’ papers. While his students often found this humorous, Fuller saw it as a genuine truth. By staying open to his students’ ideas, he discovered new ways of thinking that he might not have considered otherwise.

This two-way learning dynamic is at the heart of Fuller’s vision. Teachers shouldn’t just teach—they should also listen, challenge their own assumptions, and grow alongside their students.

Fuller goes a step further and makes a bold statement: in law, there shouldn’t be a fixed discipline or a single way of thinking. Unlike other professions, law benefits from its flexibility and adaptability. Constraining students within a specific mindset not only limits their creativity but also hinders the growth of the legal field itself.

He shares an anecdote about a colleague who asked him, “What is right?” The question left Fuller pondering for days. It was a reminder of just how complex and nuanced the law can be—and why it’s essential to encourage students to explore these deeper, open-ended questions.

At its core, Fuller’s critique is a call for law schools to rethink their approach. Legal education shouldn’t just be about memorizing rules or learning to argue cases. It should be about fostering curiosity, creativity, and a willingness to challenge the status quo.

By embracing this vision, law schools can prepare students not just for the legal challenges of today but for those that haven’t even emerged yet. In a world where the law is constantly evolving, lawyers need to do more than follow the rules—they need to help shape them.

Fuller’s vision serves as a powerful reminder that legal education, much like the law itself, must evolve. Law schools need to do more than teach students to memorize rules or follow established frameworks—they must inspire curiosity, creativity, and a willingness to challenge the status quo. After all, the law isn’t just about understanding what is; it’s about imagining what could be.