ILNews

Shepard to lead legal education task force

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In announcing the formation of a special commission to examine legal education, the American Bar Association acknowledged both the growing controversy surrounding law schools and the need to consider a new approach in the classroom.

The mission of the Task Force on the Future of Legal Education will be to review and make recommendations on the state of legal education and its responsiveness to the legal market. Former ABA President William T. Robinson III provided an outline of the reasons for taking a closer look at how students are prepared for careers as lawyers.

Randall Shepard Shepard

“The growing public attention to the cost of a law school education, the uncertain job prospects for law school graduates and the delivery of legal services in a changing market warrant substantial examination and analysis by the ABA and the legal profession,” he stated in a press release.

Two Hoosiers will have key roles on the task force. Retired Indiana Chief Justice Randall Shepard has been tapped to chair the group, and Jay Conison, dean of Valparaiso University Law School, will serve as the task force reporter. Other members are academics, practicing attorneys and judges from across the United States.

“I think what we might be able to do is identify the best trends and answer the question if any barriers exist to innovation,” Shepard said.

Change necessary

While the economic recession has fueled much of the concerns over legal education, Conison noted that law schools were thinking about how to prepare students more effectively for the practice of law well before 2008. Schools were already shifting to such teaching methods as more skills training, more clinical experience, a more problem-oriented approach and group learning.

Shepard agreed, saying law schools are better preparing students both in the understanding of doctrine as well as in giving more practical experience than they did a generation ago. Indeed, the opportunity for hands-on experience has expanded enormously in the last 50 years.

“I think, in general, the stronger the clinical experience is, the more likely it is that a lawyer will get up to speed faster when she is out in daily practice,” Shepard said. “It shortens the learning curve.”

The ABA’s “A Survey of Law School Curricula: 2002-2010,” released in 2012, echoed Conison and Shepard, finding that law schools have been responding to the tight job market and economic downturn. In addition, a “wholesale curricular review” has induced experimentation and brought change that has resulted in new programs and experiential learning along with greater emphasis on writing across the curriculum.

However, Kyle McEntee, executive director of the nonprofit legal education policy organization Law School Transparency, still sees law schools being put at risk if they do not change. As the federal government gets weary of law students not paying back their student loans, he foresees Congress ceasing to offer assistance to those individuals going to law school.

“It sounds crazy,” McEntee, a licensed attorney, said, “but it’s going to get to the point where taxpayers are tired of paying $5 billion to $6 billion a year” for law school student loans.

Under pressure

Much of the anxiety, anger and fear surrounding legal education is coming from the uncertain economy as well as the pressures law schools are increasingly under, Conison said. These pressures arise from a number of issues including a student body that learns differently and has different needs, a growth in the number of foreign students matriculating, and a rise in the emphasis on international law.

To help people outside the legal community better understand legal education, Conison writes a blog about law schools on The Huffington Post. The general public has an interest in legal education because of the role the lawyers hold in society, he said, but reacting without understanding the complexity of legal education could hamper law schools, and by extension the legal profession, in the long run.

For example, curtailing law school enrollment, he said, could possibly create a shortage of attorneys 15 years from now.

educationA key way to improve the quality of education, McEntee said, is for law schools to rely more on adjunct faculty. These individuals would bring practical knowledge into the classroom, teaching what the students need to know to be good lawyers.

The traditional law school model based on tenured faculty doing scholarship research is contributing to raising the cost of tuition and is providing the most benefit to the scholars instead of the students, he said. Instead, legal education should be focused on the people who are in the classroom and the people who will be served by the future lawyers.

“We’re not anti-intellectual,” he said, noting there’s a huge value in scholarship and expansion of knowledge, but the question is how much should students and taxpayers fund.

Task force agenda

Shepard expects a “huge part” of the task force’s work will examine what legal education should comprise.

In his position as executive in residence at the Indiana University Public Policy Institute, Shepard sees an opportunity to collaborate with his colleagues in the institute and in the Robert H. McKinney School of Law, as well as possibly call upon the law students for help with research.

Conison also sees the work of the task force as very important and possibly having a significant and positive impact on clinical and skills education, law schools and the legal profession.

“I think if the committee does its work, does a good job and puts out thoughtful recommendations, we will have the potential to make a great impact,” Conison said.

Conversely, McEntee argued that the task force should not focus on the “nitty-gritty” of what is taught in the classroom. It should address the issue of cost and look for ways to encourage schools to innovate which, in turn, will lead into the substance of legal education.

The task force is expected to conclude its work in 2014, but Shepard hopes the committee can finish in less than two years. As for how the final recommendations will be received, Shepard has set an ambitious mark.

He wants the task force’s findings to have an impact much like the one that followed the release of 1992’s “The Report of the Task Force on Law School and the Profession: Narrowing the Gap,” commonly know as “The MacCrate Report.” This study, Shepard said, provided the impetus for more hands-on training in law schools and helped spark continuing legal education for practicing lawyers.

“If we do that well,” he said, “I’ll declare victory.”•

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. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT