ILNews

ABA Legal Education Task Force calls for law school innovation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The American Bar Association Task Force for the Future of Legal Education, led by Randall Shepard, retired chief justice of the Indiana Supreme Court, issued its draft report Friday, Sept. 20, with recommendations for improving law schools.

The 38-page report largely mirrors a working paper the task force issued in August. According to task force reporter and former Valparaiso Law School Dean Jay Conison, this draft reflects incremental improvements the committee made in response to comments since the working paper’s publication.

“My view is the task force has taken on an extremely difficult project,” Conison said. “It worked extremely hard and very thoughtfully to attempt to understand both the internal problems and challenges, and the many integrated opportunities for improvement.”

Throughout the report, the task force encourages law schools to become more innovative and increase the heterogeneity of programs. Related to that recommendation, the task force suggested the ABA eliminate or “substantially” liberalize standards that, for example, mandate students must spend three years in law school or restrict credit for paid internships.

The task force report encourages law schools to try new and improved ways of delivering legal education that benefit students and possibly lowers costs, Conison said. How much innovation and what kinds of risks to take will be something schools will have to sort out on their own.

Other key conclusions include:
•    Re-engineering the way legal education is priced and funded.
•    Putting more emphasis on skills training, experiential learning and practice-related competencies.
•    Developing new frameworks for licensing providers of legal services, potentially allowing individuals who do not hold a law degree to deliver limited legal services.

Conison believes the final recommendations of the task force could bring fundamental changes.

“This has the potential of having enormous benefit on legal education,” he said.

The task force is soliciting public comment on the draft report which will be used to help the panel prepare a final report scheduled to be submitted in November. This document will be considered by the ABA House of Delegates in February 2014. Neither the draft report nor the final report represents the policy or positions of the ABA.

According to Conison, reactions to the working paper have been thoughtful and analytical. The task force has worked to reconcile competing recommendations from the public.

Shepard will be talking about the future of legal education when he delivers the Clynes Chair Lecture at 4 p.m., Sept. 25, at the University of Notre Dame Law School.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT