ABA approves paid externships for law students

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Law students will be able to earn money while earning class credit as part of a change to the legal education standards approved by the American Bar Association during its annual meeting this month.

The ABA House of Delegates concurred with a proposal from the ABA Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar which opens the door for law students to get academic credit for paid externships. According to a press release from the ABA, the delegates voted Aug. 8 on the proposal after a “short but spirited debate.”

Under the previous standard, students were barred from receiving compensation for field placements. In August 2014, the House of Delegates nudged the council to remove the prohibition. The delegates said eliminating the provision would increase the number of experiential opportunities and enable law students to graduate with less debt.

In December 2015, the council approved amendments to the Standards for Approval of Law Schools which followed the delegates’ recommendation and crossed out the prohibition on paychecks. Advocates of the change echoed the delegates, saying students would be able to reduce their loan debt if they could earn money while getting class credit.

However some law school professors opposed the removal. They fear that allowing compensation will alter the nature of the externship to one where employers are assigning work that benefits the organization rather than work that helps the students’ educational growth.

In its report on the proposal, the council said it did share the professors’ concern. It stated the protections in the revised standard “were adequate to ensure that students participating in field placements for which compensation is offered would be receiving a substantial lawyering experience deserving of academic credit.”


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....