Making it happen: starting, sustaining and growing a law clinic

In this article from the Autumn 2006 issue of Directions Alwyn Jones (De Montfort University) reports on the 2006 Clinical Legal Education Organisation (CLEO) conference held at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in London on 14 July 2006.

With the support of UKCLE, about 60 law teachers met for a day in London to continue the revival of the Clinical Legal Education Organisation (CLEO) which began in 2005. The 2006 CLEO conference covered both the practical challenges involved in setting up and sustaining clinics and the diversification of clinical teaching models.

In the opening plenary session, Avrom Sherr (Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London), showed how clinical legal education can challenge ‘the professional project’, and the didactic method in traditional legal education, Nigel Duncan (Inns of Court School of Law, City University) discussed the perceptions of clinic as “too expensive”, or “just skills education” and showed how it can challenge students to reflect and look more critically at what they have been told about the law, while Kara Irwin (BPP Law School) discussed how to manage the competing needs to maximise both opportunities for students to participate in pro bono activities and the educational benefits for those who take part. Kara also highlighted the model of a public interest track (with the forgiveness of student loans) used in some American law schools.

In workshop sessions Robin Palmer (University of KwaZulu-Natal) and Kara Irwin showed how law clinics can be set up with limited resources and how some initial obstacles can be avoided. Philip Plowden (Northumbria University) explained how the full casework/in-house model of clinic works in the Student Law Office at Northumbria. His presentation raised questions such as the balance to be struck between casework and public interest work, assessment and continuity on major ongoing cases. It also showed how solicitor-tutors, an in-house trainee solicitor and summer bursary students help to provide a year round advice service.

Further sessions looked at alternatives to the solicitors law office approach. Two presentations, by Caroline Strevens (University of Portsmouth) with Eileen Higham (Portsmouth District CAB), and by Julie Price (Cardiff University) with Matt Ventrella (Greenwich Housing Rights and AdviceUK), showed how university law schools can collaborate effectively with advice services to incorporate advice training and experience into the law school curriculum with structured opportunities for reflection. Another pair of presentations, by Michael Naughton (University of Bristol) with Julie Price (Cardiff University) and Carole McCartney (University of Leeds), showed how students can learn through researching possible miscarriages of justice in innocence projects. Innocence projects provide lecturers, who may not be qualified as lawyers or who might otherwise not consider developing a clinical programme, with an opportunity to help students and institutions meet personal development, social entrepreneurship and community engagement goals. Innocence Network UK is now proposing to set up a central bank of cases for innocence projects to work on and to provide training for emerging innocence projects.

We had the chance to hear enthusiastic and informed views of clinic students Richard Glancey, Victoria Gleason and Paul Henderson (all of Northumbria University). Wendy Pettifer (College of Law) asked who really benefits from pro bono work and how to avoid a conflict between the need of students to have a meaningful learning experience within a restricted timeframe and the clients’ need to obtain a definite solution to their problem. Rhonda Hammond Sharlot (De Montfort University) prompted delegates to reflect on how we can best support students in clinical programmes.

The CLEO Model Standards Working Party led structured discussions on new draft model standards for clinical legal education (the revised standards were finally adopted in June 2007 – see our clinic home page for further information).

In the final workshop sessions, Nigel Duncan (Inns of Court School of Law, City University) reminded us that only a minority of students experience clinical legal education in most institutions. He invited us to identify ways in which clinic experience may be used as a resource for engaging students who do not directly participate in clinic with issues of lawyers’ ethics. Kevin Kerrigan engaged, challenged and inspired participants with his Socratic dialogue on clinic.

Paulo Freire observed: “Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world.” As the 2006 CLEO conference showed, this is the potential challenge for clinical legal education. It is hoped that the emerging UK clinic community and the momentum of this conference can be maintained.

Four working parties were set up at the conference:

• CLEO and the advice sector – convenor: Hugh Brayne, independent academic consultant (e-mail: hugh.brayne@blueyonder.co.uk)
• Criminal appeals/innocence projects working party – convenor: Michael Naughton, Bristol (e-mail: m.naughton@bristol.ac.uk)
• Regulatory issues working party – convenors: Sharon Farquhar and Heather Crook, Hertfordshire (e-mail: s.farquhar@herts.ac.uk and h.crook@herts.ac.uk)
• CLEO clinical standards working party – to review the 1995 model standards (the revised standards were adopted in June 2007 – see our clinic home page for further information)

Richard Grimes expressed an interest in convening a working party looking at staff training and development. It was agreed to put this on hold until the completion of his Solicitors Pro Bono Group/LawWorks clinical support project. There was further interest in a group on funding issues, but again it made sense to see what came out of Richard’s SPBG project.

The range of working groups – and the busy agendas – suggest that CLEO has a major role to play in helping to support the development of clinical teaching and learning. The summer conference should be an excellent start to this process.

Last Modified: 4 June 2010