ILNews

Shepard offering recommendations for changing legal education to ABA

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Retired Indiana Chief Justice Randall Shepard will present the final findings and recommendations of the American Bar Association Task Force on the Future of Legal Education to the ABA House of Delegates Monday.

The task force has been working since mid-2012 and members have spoken publicly about its ideas prior to the submission of its final report in January. It had earlier released two preliminary drafts of the study and hosted open discussions as well as made presentations of its conclusions.

Members of the committee came from academia, private practice, the courts and other legal entities.

“I’ve been very encouraged by the fact that a committee with many different opinions on the topic was able to come to such a level of agreement,” Shepard said. While he noted everyone on the task force did not agree with every word in the final report, he was unsure after the early meetings that the members could reach any level of agreement.

The task force recommended a rethinking of how lawyers are trained and offered comprehensive suggestions for change.

In particular it called for a modification of accreditation standards so law schools could innovate with new curriculum and programs. Also, it questioned whether the course of study for a J.D. needs to be three years.

Maintaining that other legal organizations also share in the responsibility for teaching lawyers, the committee included recommendations for bar associations, law firms, and the courts. It urged the entities to adopt a uniform bar examination and to reduce the amount of study required to sit for the bar.

The task force also recommended allowing non-lawyers to offer limited legal services as a way to improve access to justice.

Initially, the committee had planned to tender a series of resolutions for the House of Delegates to consider. However, Shepard said as the workgroup got closer to finishing its work, it realized the report was written from the perspective of speaking directly to the institutions and the profession. So instead of investing the extra time to reshape the recommendations into resolutions, the task force decided to spend the remaining months of its mandate to make presentations to various players and hope for prompt action.

Shepard conceded not offering resolutions might weaken the proposals put forth by the committee. He has always thought getting a resolution approved by the House of Delegates was a plus, but he said the task force is hopeful the power of the ideas will carry the weight that is due them.   



 

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT