The Future of Legal Education

The Future of Legal Education

Much of our discussion so far has been focused on transforming the current business structure of our profession, and rightfully so. It appears that the traditional business model that governs the way the majority of the legal industry operates is losing its appeal to both clients and prospective lawyers. Although that discussion is important, there are other aspects about the future of our profession that require our attention. What has eluded us so far has been a thorough discussion about the future of legal education, especially with respect to the admission requirements for attending law school in Canada. Don’t worry, I’m not talking about the L word.

Instead, I wanted to focus on the admission requirement of having at least 2 years (with most schools requiring more) of undergraduate studies under your belt before being able to apply to law school in Canada. In fact, “[w]ith the exception of students in Québec, the majority of successful applicants will have completed an undergraduate degree” before attending law school (CBA Report p. 54). I never really gave this much thought until I attended a panel discussion on the CBA Futures Report at the TRU Law Conference last year. Having now had the opportunity to reflect on what I have learned, I can say that there are compelling reasons for getting rid of this “undergraduate studies” requirement.

Getting Rid of the Undergraduate Studies Requirement

Pros:

(1) Removing Financial Barrier to Joining the Profession

The undergraduate studies requirement inarguably acts as a gatekeeper to the profession. The reality is that requiring candidates to have completed at least some (if not all) undergraduate studies creates a financial barrier to acquiring an already expensive degree. This added expense can greatly “affect diversity in the profession, discouraging people with limited means from applying.” (CBA Futures Report p.54) Not to mention that this added cost increases student debt, which can consequently affect the price of legal services in the future. Removing the undergraduate requirement will eliminate a financial cost that acts as a barrier to the entry of the profession.

(2) Time

This requirement also “means that prospective lawyers must invest their time in both an undergraduate degree and a law degree before entering the workforce.” This often means that students will be in their mid to late 20s upon graduation. The time that is required to have a family will be at odds with the time young lawyers must invest in the early, and most important, stage of their career. The CBA report stated that “[t]hose who do take leave from work for parenting reasons find themselves at a competitive disadvantage with their non-parenting colleagues.” This particularly affects women since they have to go through pregnancy and are often the primary care takers of their children. They are then put in the unenviable position of choosing between having a family or an uninterrupted career so to not negatively affect their odds of advancement.

Cons:

(1) Maturity, Preparedness and Competence

The most common reason as to why people advocate for keeping this requirement is simply the argument that completing some undergraduate studies will mature you and prepare you for law school, which in turn makes you a more competent lawyer. This conclusion is somewhat misguided. While they often correlate, prior education, in and of itself, is not a proxy for maturity, success in law school or a good indicator to predict competency as a lawyer. Although I can’t deny that I’ve mentally matured (hopefully my friends and family would agree) in the years I spent doing my undergrad, I don’t necessarily think education was the only factor. Indeed, I think that maturity is derived, not just from education, but also various life and employment experiences that occur outside of a classroom. While I will also admit that being in a research and writing heavy undergraduate program has assisted me in law school, I don’t necessarily think that is what is going to determine whether I will become a competent lawyer. There are many students who did not complete a research and writing heavy undergrad who have excelled not only in law school, but also in the legal profession. Indeed, so much of being a good lawyer depends on skills that you simply cannot learn or develop in a classroom setting. In fact, the CBA Futures report identified “creativity, empathy, adaptability, resilience, and breadth of perspective” as useful criterion for predicting future competency as a lawyer (CBA Report P.54). This is precisely why more schools are implementing a more “holistic” approach to admission. So, in short, it would be imprudent to equate education prior to law school with maturity, performance in law school or competency as a lawyer. As a last point, I would simply point to our “commonwealth colleagues” where students can attend law school straight out of high school. The legal profession in countries such as England and Australia do not seem to be suffering as a result.

(2) Over-saturation of the Market

Finally, some would argue that removing the undergraduate requirement would result in an increase number of law students, which in turn would over-saturate the market. This is a false conclusion. Removing the undergraduate requirement does not increase the number of law students, though it may increase the number of applicants. The effect of having more applicants would simply be increasingly higher standards for entry as a result of increased competition.

We are constantly looking for ways to remove barriers to justice and legal services, yet we have overlooked the barriers that prevent entry into our own profession. A good place to start would be re-evaluating the admission criteria currently being used by Law Schools across Canada.