As the legal field continues to expand, general practitioners are expected to know more in their respective fields to better assist their clients. A lawyer is expected to enhance their knowledge by keeping up with the evolution of the legal sector. Harry Arthurs recognizes the dangers that future lawyers may face in The Future of Legal Education: Three Visions and a Prediction.
He suggests a possible option where “The bar may one day recognize not just one class of members, but many. Members of each class would have different educational credentials…that general practitioners will one day be licensed to appear as advocates in certain tribunals and the lower courts, and to do routine real estate transactions, simple incorporations and uncontested divorces—but not undertake appellate litigation, patent applications or tax planning”.
He further elaborates “They might offer a skills-based one-year degree for paralegals, a stripped-down tow-year ‘basic’ degree for general practitioners, an enhanced four year degree for specialist practitioners, and conversion courses for those who want to upgrade their credentials”.
On the one hand, I can see this as a form of specialization in a specific area for law students. Those that know what area of law they want to practice can choose to study that, right from the beginning while avoiding all the unnecessary courses that they will never use for their chosen area of practice.
However, on the other hand I see this as undermining the value of legal education and hence a J.D. By creating this separation in the legal education, many of the basic competencies will be omitted from one’s legal education. On a basic level many of the different fields of law interact with each other, and competencies in all these areas are crucial for a practitioner to come up with the best solution for their clients.
There is obviously a wealth of knowledge available in studying law. In my opinion, due to the enhanced level of education required to sufficiently practice in each specific area of law, I think in the future, a LLM in the chosen area of practice will be mandatory after a JD, in order to obtain an articling position in the desired field.
With each area of law expanding everyday, I think it would be ridiculous to cut down on the legal education. The only way to keep up with the evolving nature of the legal sector is to increase the education required, and thus satisfying the necessary requirements of becoming a competent practitioner. Of course, this is just my view. What do you think are some ways our legal education will evolve to better accommodate us in being competent in our areas of practice for the future?
5 Comments
Hi Sarvesh,
Great post. Though I agree that lawyers should always engage in continued education throughout their careers I’m a little skeptical about needing an LLM to practice in a certain area of law in the future. As mentioned a few weeks ago, adding this creates another financial barrier to working in our profession and can in a way decrease access, not just to the legal profession, but also to justice.
I think Ajit mentioned this in class a few weeks ago, but I think it would be really beneficial for law school to incorporate interdisciplinary classes within their curriculum. (i.e psychology, counseling, accounting etc…) This will help prospective lawyers acquire skills outside of the usual legal curriculum that will inevitably assist them in practice.
I also agree that lawyers should engage in continuing legal education throughout their careers, and totally agree that adding an LLM ‘specialization’ requirement would create further financial barriers for those wishing to attain a legal education. I think it is possible for lawyers to keep up with the skills necessary for practice in specific areas by engaging in professional development workshops designed to update and refresh these skills, perhaps on a yearly basis.
With respect to expanding the law school curriculum, I think it would be beneficial to have more practical courses at law school. For example, courses designed to teach law students how to interact with clients in firm settings, draft affidavits and memoranda of argument based on specific areas of law, and how to conduct a trial, to name a few. I wouldn’t be entirely comfortable with having to take courses that are similar to those I took while completing undergraduate degrees, such as psychology and counselling, since those seem to me to be outside the scope of this professional program. However, I definitely agree that more courses designed to assist in practice would serve law students and the legal profession well.
Interesting post Sarvesh! I think in the Canadian context, we seem to have a variation on the educational options discussed with respect to the broader category of legal professionals. In BC, many colleges offer ‘Legal Administrative Assistant/Paralegal’ programs that are usually 6-12 months in duration, and SFU exclusively offers a two year M.A.L.S. for those wishing to become notaries. The JD programs currently offered at UBC & UVic (and hopefully in the near future at TRU!) provide the option of combined degrees such as a MBA, MPA, MPP, MSW etc. by adding a year of studies to the standard three year JD program. Presently, these programs usually have limited seats and require additional application processes for admission. I think one change which may occur in the future as a part of the transformation of legal education, is the offering/integration of inter-disciplinary courses at the Master’s level as electives for the JD program. I think such elective offerings – logistically already available on limited scope – will help law students branch out and attain skills in other highly relevant areas, ultimately leading to more skilled practitioners. In contrast, I think the LLM requirement for specialization would perhaps create certain barriers and challenges in the overall trajectory of becoming a practitioner, if simply added as a requirement alongside a JD. Therefore, I think a more viable solution would be reducing required courses in the JD curriculum, to allow students in their upper years to choose specific practice streams e.g. litigation, family law, criminal etc. *Most other law faculties, in comparison to TRU, have fewer required courses.
With respect to other future curriculum changes/development, I think an additional change to the JD programming would be the integration of PLTC as a third year elective offering in BC Law Faculties. The current format of PLTC as a 10 week offering with assignments etc., lends itself well to adaptation as an exclusive third year offering. This would allow students to engage in foundational practical skill development while still in school.
Great post Sarvesh! I agree that a specialization may undermine the value of legal education. A specialization would probably result in a longer academic program, as students would still need to cover the basics of first year law school. So the increased time factor may serve as a deterrent.
Additionally, choosing to specialize could undermine the wholesome value of the legal education. While, at the time a student is deciding to specialize, specializing may seem like the smart thing to do, the student will deprive themselves of other areas in the law which are likely to be relevant in their work experience. For example, I have heard an established business lawyer, who now works as in house counsel, say that her biggest regret was not taking Evidence in law school. She said that if she would go back, she would definitely take it as it popped up from time to time, even though she was not a litigator. I believe that while some courses should be required in law school in the upper year courses, with the remainder to allow for the student to tailor their experience. This way students receive at least somewhat of a well-rounded education.
Like Niki, I believe that law schools, and law firms, would greatly benefit if smaller seminar courses were held, which worked on lawyers’ service provision. In law school, and as articling students we will not likely have much interaction as we will be providing our work to a professor, or a supervising lawyer. Therefore, a crucial part of the business – interacting with the client – is something we are untrained in. If we teach basic week-long courses which focus on things like financial statement analysis, psychology, and counselling, students will be better prepared to interact with and understand clients. However, if law schools were not to provide these courses, it would also be very beneficial for law firms to arrange for their lawyers to do courses like these. Learning these skills is important, and getting a refresher never hurt either.
In regards to an LLM, it may be beneficial in some ways, but I could perceive some law firms looking to an LLM the same way some financial firms (ie. hedge funds and private equity firms) look to an MBA. They would rather have you working and making money than going back to school and getting an education. If this is in fact the view, I do not believe that an LLM will be determinative of law students getting jobs as lawyers.
I find that a Law universities are offering more specialized law degrees and the legal field is seeing an increase and shift towards boutique firms. This means students may be interested in narrowing their focus, in hopes that they can gain a head start in their preferred area of practice. My worry is that this is a risky strategy. Law students may be more likely to excel at legal areas that they enjoy learning about, but in reality, it can be difficult for young lawyers or articling students to get a feel for an area until they actually practice it. Admittedly, using law school as a chance to glimpse into different practice areas is important, but at the same time, many often end up in an area that they don’t expect. There are so many practical limitations to specializing in law school.