ILNews

Hebenstreit: Has the Time Come for Articling?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

IBA-hebenstreitDo you know what the term “articling” means? I did not until recently, but it is quite relevant to the discussions swirling around about the value and importance of a law school education.

The American Bar Association held its Annual Conference in Toronto, Ontario recently. Many have asked why a group of American lawyers would want to travel to Canada for a conference, but that is not the real point. As part of participating in the sessions for Bar leaders, I attended a forum concerning the similarities and differences of Bar Associations (or “law associations” as they are frequently referred to north of the border) in Canada and the States. One of the speakers was a gentleman who was the Immediate Past President of the Toronto Lawyers’ Association. It was interesting learning the differences between the 2 common law systems including that the Canadian trial lawyers actual “robe” to enter the courtroom.

What was most interesting for me was the concept of articling. It is founded on a medieval practice but is still practiced in Canada. After the typical 3 year law school education, the Canadian students still must pass the equivalent of the bar exam. But, to sit for the exam, they need to complete essentially a one year apprenticeship. During the period of articling, they attend the equivalent of our Bar Review course, but are not allowed to sit for the exam until they complete their articling responsibilities.

It sounds very similar to the traditional practice here in the States where a firm selects a second year student as a clerk and then hires that student to serve the apprenticeship after law school. The Canadian graduates are typically paid and are under the tutelage of an experienced attorney. There are apparently no real rules about how detailed the mentorship needs to be, but those with whom I spoke felt they received good value from the articling students—and typically hired them after successfully completing the Bar Exam. The law schools help to pair their students with a mentor, but it really is up to the student to find a mentor. Also, there is a limit to how many years within which a student must complete their articling requirement, so it is entirely possible that a student could never find a good match and consequently not be able to even sit for the exam.

Here in the States, there is growing concern about the high cost of a law school education as well as the concern that law students do not learn how to practice law in the traditional law school. I am not sure how that is different from 1977 when I graduated from IU Law School at Indianapolis. There were internships available, but upon graduation, I did not know how to practice—nor did I expect that. The culture, at least as I saw it, was that law school educated a student to understand legal principles as well as how to think like a lawyer. It was up to us to figure out what to do with it.

Certainly, the cost of a legal education was dramatically cheaper than it is now. Some student loan payments equal what our first monthly mortgage payment was. That truly is unfortunate. Students still have to figure out what to do with their education. The economic pressure is greater, but the problem is the same.

Much has been written about the cost of a legal education compared with the practical applications of that same education. Some writers have accused the law schools of deceit in enticing students into paying for law school when there are no jobs for them upon graduation. This seems a bit silly. If we believe that the students are smart enough to graduate from a law school, aren’t they smart enough to determine if it is a good course of action to take?

This year we have met with Dean Gary Roberts concerning whether or not the law school should be an institution of higher learning or a mere trade school. It is a conundrum because on the one hand, the schools would like to be more responsive to the needs of their graduates, but they still must meet the requirements of accreditation-- and national rankings are still important. The primary thrust of our discussions revolved around what is essentially a form of articling—some way that the mentors of the IndyBar could, or would, agree to provide some form of apprenticeship for the students. Those talks will continue, but perhaps we should look to our Canadian brothers and sisters for guidance.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT