Active learning in law schools: the community dimension

Report on the 2001 CLEO conference

• What role can, or should, law schools play in the provision of legal services?
• What opportunities exist for students to learn through involvement in real casework?
• How can clinical initiatives be effectively resourced and developed in an educational context?
• How can professional standards be met?
• What has been the experience of others in such developments?

These were some of the questions posed for delegates at the 3rd CLEO conference held at the University of Warwick on 4 January 2001. Over 50 people attended from universities and colleges, government and the ‘not for profit’ sector. Academics, students, managers and community-based activists spent the day discussing the extent to which law schools might contribute to the provision of legal services.

Identifying need and matching models

Richard Grimes (Director of Pro Bono Services and Clinical Education at the College of Law) opened the conference. He suggested to the audience that a unique opportunity now existed for law schools to work in partnership with other providers to improve access to law whilst enhancing the students’ educational experience.

The first session focused on the identification of issues of supply and demand – the needs of the community in terms of advice, assistance and representation, and the means by which those needs could be met.

Tony Thorpe (Citizenship Foundation) introduced the concept of legal literacy, raising the importance of the awareness of rights and responsibilities as a prerequisite to effective access to legal services. He stressed the value of using law schools in delivering rights awareness programmes, mentioning in particular the collaborative work carried out by the Citizenship Foundation and Sheffield Hallam University.

Sara Chandler (Vice-Chair, Law Centres Federation) was the next speaker. She explained the work of the LCF as an umbrella support and development organisation for community-based law centres. Recent changes to the Legal Aid scheme had dramatically affected the availability and delivery of legal services, particularly to those perhaps least able to enforce their rights. The involvement of law academics and students was seen to be an important factor in supplementing legal service provision – providing any services offered were professionally supervised and were sensitive to local nee and conditions.

The third speaker in this introductory session was Wallace Wilson (Legal Services Commission, North East Regional Office). In a timely contribution he explained the rationale and structure of the Commission and the role of Community Legal Service Partnerships (CLSPs). The LSC wanted to promote a roots-up approach to identifying need and was open to innovatory ideas for delivery of legal services. Subject to CLSP backing and Quality Mark attainment the LSC was able to fund in total or part advice, representation and awareness raising schemes. Law Schools were encouraged to meet with regional LSC offices and join local CLSPs.

With this overview in place David McQuoid-Mason (University of Natal, South Africa) addressed delegates on responding to need – the law school’s role. He stressed the educational importance of involving students, at the earliest opportunity, in pro bono work. This impacted not only on their understanding of law and the legal system but profoundly affected their awareness of the role of law and lawyers in society.

In South Africa clinical legal education had made a substantial contribution to legal service provision. With close collaboration between the law schools, the legal profession and state and federal government law students were increasingly integrated into the main frame of legal service delivery. Law students worked in Legal Aid Centres, as public defenders and in a wide-reaching legal literacy or Street Law programme. With professionally appropriate supervisory systems in place the public, profession and students were all ‘winners’ in educational and service provision terms.

Working models

Having set the scene, the conference then moved on to look at models of clinical practice in action through a description and discussion of existing community-focused clinical programmes.

John Fitzpatrick (University of Kent Law Clinic) and Sarah Cracknell (Sheffield Hallam University Law Clinic) gave an overview of their in-house representation clinics. Both emphasised the powerful nature of the educational experience and suggested that the value-added component of clinical education may impact beyond the clinic itself.

Students for example report that their research and case analysis skills improve as a result of clinical work and this is reflected in their subsequent academic work. (Empirical research (Cracknell, Klaff, Grimes and Steyne, forthcoming, 2001) appears to support this perception.) The realities of working in a real-client clinic were discussed, with resourcing and quality assurance identified as key concerns. The changing nature of legal service delivery and the implications for law schools becoming involved in such work were also raised.

Nigel Duncan, (Inns of Court School of Law) then looked at placement clinics, describing in particular the involvement of Bar Vocational Course students in the London-based Free Representation Unit. He echoed the comments of previous speakers on the educational worth of hands-on legal study, emphasising the opportunities presented by working through existing service providers.

A wide range of organisations, in both the legal practice and not for profit sectors, could offer placement or externship opportunities. Being placed in the community the student experience was, in some ways, more ‘real’ than in the in-house clinic. For the placement to be clinical however a structured reflective component was needed to provide a forum for discussion and critical understanding. There also needed to be clearly articulated expectations on behalf of all participants. The resource implications, so often a significant challenge in the in-house clinic, can be less imposing in the placement context, as the body responsible for the placement will have its own infrastructure which the law school can link in to.

Making plans

Delegates then broke into workshops to look at clinical practice and community involvement in greater detail:

• rights and responsibilities: law as education in the community (two sessions, led by David McQuoid-Mason, University of Natal, South Africa and Stephen Levett, College of Law)
• law schools and in-house legal services (led by Hugh Brayne, University of Sunderland)
• working through existing providers (two sessions, led by Nigel Duncan, Inns of Court School of Law and Andy Williams, University of Warwick)
• the North Eastern Circuit’s initiative on pro bono services (led by Robert Hanson, barrister, Leeds)

Rather than focusing on a description of the workshop content the ‘report back’ plenary session provided an opportunity for delegates to highlight issues that could be taken forward in the future. Each workshop was asked to identify the points that their group considered important for an action plan. Their responses are set out below under the general headings covered by the workshop sessions.

In-house clinics

• Who is the in-house clinic for? A clear understanding on the extent to which law schools could meet clients’ requirements was needed. This might best be achieved through membership of local Community Legal Service Partnerships.
• How are clinics working? There was a need to share best practice on a range of academic and quality assurance issues including learning outcomes, assessment and operational rules.
• How can clinics be funded? Given the resourcing problems in higher and further education generally, how might money be secured to run effective clinical programmes? A workshop on funding, to which those responsible for supporting legal service delivery in the public and private sectors could be invited, was thought to be a useful starting point

Placement clinics

• What protocols/agreements/structures had worked in practice? A central repository of documentation covering the set-up and running of placement clinics was needed. The CLEO website might be used to allow electronic access to such material.
• How do placement clinics fit into the broader curriculum? Programmes needed to be sufficiently structured to meet client and educational quality standards but flexible enough to work in the community context. More information should be disseminated on these issues.
• How can performance in a placement clinic be assessed? Guidance would be useful on assessment generally.
• How can such initiatives be funded?

Street law

• What training exits for those embarking on or wishing to improve their Street Law provision? A workshop on Street Law options and methodology would be helpful.
• If Street Law relies on partnerships (between law schools and the community) who might the partners be? An exchange of partner details and contacts would be helpful.
• Again what about funding? A sum of money (£5m?) had been earmarked by the Legal Services Commission to support innovatory projects on access to law and rights awareness – community-based legal education might fall within this ambit.

North East Circuit initiative

This workshop looked at using the legal profession in partnership with law schools to promote pro bono work. The plan for the local Bar to work with 13 regional universities on the NE Circuit was generally supported by the conference. More information was needed on exactly how the scheme might work and what the funding requirements were. Robert Hanson agreed to make contact with the universities in the region to explore possibilities.

Panel/delegate discussion

The conference concluded with a panel/delegate discussion chaired by Hugh Brayne (University of Sunderland):

David McQuoid-Mason, University of Natal
Richard Grimes, College of Law
Abid Hussain, Doncaster Borough Council
Maria Byrne, Education Department, HM Prison Wormwood Scrubs
Roger Burridge, University of Warwick
Sue Bucknall, Solicitors’ Pro Bono Group
Wallace Wilson, Legal Services Commission

The following issues were raised:

Standards

It was essential, for professional, educational and public funding purposes, to ensure that services offered by law schools met the appropriate quality benchmarks. In part this could be assured by the adoption of tested procedures and structures.

The Community Legal Service Quality Mark is an important aspect of this assurance process. Delegates were advised that the Legal Services Commission would be prepared to conduct an audit for quality assurance purposes on a non-institutional basis. Law schools, perhaps through CLEO, might submit applications in principle for consideration for the kite marking of community-based clinical projects. These however should be submitted after consultation with the relevant Community Legal Service partnership.

Templates and manuals

Delegates expressed the view that good practice needed to be shared. By exchanging information on programmes that had been piloted, templates might be designed that could be used by those wanting to establish clinics. Manuals and other teaching material were also needed. CLEO was again seen as the vehicle through which this might be achieved.

Funding

Resourcing issues are central to the development of clinical work, particularly real-client clinics. Several funding options were identified including Regeneration, Neighbourhood Renewal, European Structural Fund, National Lottery and Legal Services Commission. The UKCLE’s Project Development Fund will also support clinically focused innovation. Expert advice was needed to identify the relevant sources and strategies, and CLEO was asked to convene a workshop on this topic as soon as possible.

Prisons

The value of legal literacy work in prisons was raised. By working with the education department in prisons law schools could offer a range of rights and responsibilities courses. Feedback from staff, students and prisoners in pilots conducted so far had been very positive. Sensitivity needed to be shown in working in such an environment, but the initiative seemed to provide a unique opportunity for all concerned.

The student perception

Several students who had been, or were currently undertaking, clinical programmes, attended the conference. Their contribution to the conference added an important dimension. In particular, three students from Kazakhstan (currently studying in England) emphasised that the clinic had given them a real insight into the workings of law and the legal system, and they valued very highly the opportunity of learning by doing.

The conference was closed by Richard Grimes (College of Law), who agreed to organise as soon as possible, through CLEO, a workshop on funding opportunities for clinical programmes.

For the really keen there then followed the conference dinner and entertainment. Both were highly enjoyable (for more on the singing, acting and animal impersonating talents of participants speak to the conference organisers!) – proving that learning by doing lasted until the end and that there is no reason why hard work cannot be fun!

Richard Grimes
January 2001

Last Modified: 30 June 2010