The second and third years are generally the same, essentially a large range of electives and the decision to pursue a series of courses in a particular specialty
For example, if I wanted to practice in Bankruptcy, I might sequence like Contracts (1st year-mandatory), Payment Systems (2nd year) Secured Credit (2nd year), Bankruptcy (3rd year) along with corresponding workshops or seminars.
The only reason people slack off so much is because the first year is the closest thing to intellectual boot camp out there. It is a tremendously trying experience, and generally produces the grades and corresponding hierarchy that stick for the duration of school, and determine employment prospects out of the gates for new graduates (though a lot can be done after graduation).
Sure, you could eliminate a year, but then by the same logic you could eliminate a year or two off the B.A. or B.S. degree as well, if the only thing you cared about was immediate employment impact. I don't think many faculty would think this is a good idea.
The third year of law school as presently structured is a joke.
A lawyer's wife told me that the primary purpose of the third year in law school is to allow sufficient time for the aspiring lawyer to move from adolescence into adulthood.
As an ex-attorney's wife, I can attest that the adulthood thing doesn't happen in the third year, after the Bar is passed, or when he has his own practice.