30 November 2011

Legal Pedagogy, Skills-Teaching, and Who Pays

Ten days ago I posted some comments here on David Segal's piece in the NYT about lack of skills-teaching in contemporary American legal education. Despite raising some cogent points, I concluded that Segal was parroting the "company line" of BigLaw, which seeks to shift its legal training responsibilities to law schools and ultimately students' pockets. Pay to play, so to speak.

Two articles of interest have even more recently come to my attention. First, one by my colleague Ben Madison here who describes some of the real-world skills practicing lawyers need to have. Second, an example of not only how it can be done but how it is being done today (albeit not in America).

The most recent special report of The Financial Times features a series of articles under the rubric "Innovative Law Schools 2011." You can read them all here but one in particular stood out: Partners in Law. The subtitle--"Firms and Schools are Finding Ways to Co-operate"--says it all. Unfortunately for American law students, it's available only for budding lawyers in the U.K.

Law students in England who wish to practice in anything but the most high-level litigation must undergo a year-long legal practice course before receiving their solicitors license. Apparently several law schools have upped the level of this year by partnering with elite law firms in the City (such as Clifford Chance and Linklaters) to learn both sophisticated practice skills and also the business of business.

Who pays? The students. Who teaches? The law firms.

Seems like a reasonable way to go.

No comments:

Post a Comment