ILNews

Shepard task force paper cites ‘deeply flawed’ legal ed funding system

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Former Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard’s task force looking at the future of legal education financing sees a “deeply flawed” system, according to a working paper presented at this week’s annual meeting of the American Bar Association in San Francisco.

“At present, the system faces considerable pressure prompted by rising tuition, large amounts of student debt, falling applications, and limited availability of jobs for law graduates," according to the report overview.

Highlights of the Task  Force on the Future of Legal Education’s conclusions include:

  •  The top-scoring LSAT earners qualify for tuition discounts with little regard for need, shifting the loan burden to those scoring lower. “The net result is that students whose credentials (and likely job prospects) are the weakest incur large debt to sustain the school budget and enable higher-credentialed students to attend at little cost. These practices drive up both tuition and debt, and they are in need of serious re-engineering.”
  • The ABA should revise or eliminate accreditation standards that “sustain a far higher level of standardization in legal education than may be necessary to turn out capable lawyers.”
  • ABA accreditation should better facilitate innovations in law school programs, and its variance processes should be open to public view “as an avenue to foster experimentation by law schools.”
  • The balance between skills training and hands-on training “needs to shift still further toward the core competencies needed by people who will deliver legal services to clients.”
  • State courts, bars and admitting authorities should find additional ways to deliver legal services, “such as licensing limited practitioners or authorizing bar admission for people whose preparation is not in the traditional three-year classroom mold.”


The 34-page paper will be the subject of a five-hour ABA hearing on Saturday. Shepard told the ABA Journal he expects some recommendations to be widely applauded and others widely condemned, though he didn’t say which proposals would be so received.

Created last year, the task force expects to produce a final report by Nov. 20, the filing deadline to be placed on the agenda for the ABA House of Delegates’ Midyear Meeting in Chicago in February 2014, ABA Journal reported.





 

 
 

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. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT