Group
#6: Law Schools and Legal Education
Less is More: Legal Education Rebooted
Mary Helen McNeal, Syracuse University
College of Law
For the last fifty years, there have been periodic
calls for reform of legal education.
Both the McCrate and Carnegie Reports propelled law schools to
re-examine their curricula, and some made dramatic changes. Experiential learning has expanded, with
increasingly specialized in-house clinics to externships, paid and unpaid, in
both the public and private sectors.
Doctrinal classes increasingly include experiential components,
responding to demands to better prepare students for practice. ABA standards have simultaneously evolved to
require a finite number of experiential learning credits, and most recently, a
focus on professional identity formation.
Amidst these changes, the cost of legal education
has continued to rise. Low-and
moderate-income people continue to struggle to secure access to legal
assistance. Technology is changing the
practice and doing some of what people used to do. Clients are reluctant to pay
exorbitant fees and outsourcing is common.
And yet, law school remains largely the same. This essay proposes that law school be
reduced to two years and the adoption of a formal tutelage program. Following their second year, students would
work with experienced practitioners. Law
school faculty would facilitate the learning process by training practitioners with
supervision and meeting with “students” periodically to assist them in learning
from their experiences. While not a new
suggestion, this essay will explore why a confluence of factors, including the
costs of legal education, the growth in experiential learning, the changing
economics of practice, and the role of technology, make this an opportune time
to finally make this radical shift.
Analyzing Inclusive Language Practices in Clinical
Advocacy
Jennifer Safstrom, Vanderbilt School of
Law
This
project builds upon prior scholarship setting forth key considerations for
inclusive language decision-making in a multi-factor framework—accuracy,
precision, relevance, audience, and respect. Applying these principles, this
analysis will explore the terms used by clinics in practice and the potential
implications of those choices on student learning, case outcomes, as well as
client, partner, and community relationships. This piece will explore some
current trends and best practices when adopting these principles in the context
of specific groups, and will connect these principles to broader academic and
practice issues. Upon identifying these variations and trends, this project
will further assess how these language choices are reconciled with the general
practice patterns, as well as the clinic’s advocacy goals, clients, and
intended audience.