Legal education in the United States does not fully prepare graduates to easily transition from students to practicing attorneys. Several prominent organizations, including the American Bar Association, have called for reform in legal curriculum to include greater practical training. Primarily, reformers argue for an increased focus on recognizing and solving client problems and less of a reliance on case dialogue classes. Despite these criticisms, law schools have been slow to implement changes to their syllabii.

This Article argues that law schools should incorporate problem-solving classes and practical training into their curricula. First, it examines the problem-solving methodology developed by Joseph William Singer. Next, this Article demonstrates how problem-solving training can be incorporated into legal education, including integrating this methodology into current classes and creating new problem-solving courses, and provides further guidance for constructing a curriculum around problem solving. This Article then illustrates the need for problem-solving methodology to be taught in law schools. Finally, this Article discusses both the benefits and the practical challenges to incorporating problem solving into the law school curriculum. Ultimately, the Author argues that including problem solving in legal education better prepares students to resolve client problems and bridges the gap between legal theory and practice.