Jerry Nissenbaum, a veteran lawyer in Boston, has written a fairly lengthy piece discussing the Rounds/Levine exchange. He hasn’t posted it anywhere, but I’ll gladly send it to anyone who’d like to read the whole thing. Here are some excerpts:

I came across the dueling articles by Professors Charles E. Rounds, Jr. and Jan M. Levine. As a mere divorce lawyer who thinks of the courtroom as both my living room and my playground, I concluded that Rounds presents facts; and Levine, well, just presents. Having known a good number of law school professors over my 43+ years of practice, I reject Levine’s claim that most faculty teaching fundamental or traditional courses do not have the ability to teach ’skills courses.’
I have far too often encountered young opposing counsel who offer up defenses and theories that have no basis in law. Just as often, they have no grasp of, if they ever understood, fundamental concepts of agency, trust law, or what is and is not a fiduciary responsibility.
Being able to write one nice final paper, crafted over a well supportive three to six months in a law school writing course, while important, is not the set of skills that produces an able lawyer.
The only hire we consider in our boutique practice is a lawyer who well-completed the above-mentioned fundamental courses, plus criminal law, torts, property law, UCC, and taxation. To me, these are the threads flowing through and which hold our society together — the core courses needed on which to build one’s knowledge by practicing law.