Snails in bottles and language cuckoos...evolution in the law curriculum?

In this editorial for the Spring 2008 issue of Directions Amanda Fancourt, until January 2008 UKCLE’s Vocational Educational Developer, reflects on the themes of Learning in Law Annual Conference 2008. Amanda is now a senior lecturer at City Law School.

The snails and cuckoos of the title featured in the keynote addresses given by Avrom Sherr (Institute of Advanced Legal Studies) and Sally Kift (Queensland University of Technology) at Learning in Law Annual Conference 2008 held at the University of Warwick in January.

The conference had taken as its theme ‘(Dis)integration…designs on the law curriculum’, with underlying keywords – community, creativity, critique, engagement, evolution, experience, integration and value(s) – on which the keynotes and parallel sessions were based. As always at the conference (this year’s was the tenth), the evolution taking place in legal education was evident, through both the keynotes and the diverse papers given. Avrom considered changes in Europe vis à vis language aspects of legal education, while Sally addressed 21st century curriculum design challenges and changes more generally, including a recent YouTube interpretation of Donoghue v Stevenson.

When I revisited the keynote presentations for this editorial, and how they addressed the conference keywords, I was struck by a pattern into which those keywords seemed to fall. When considering evolution in the law curriculum and legal education, we examine our communities (of teachers and students alike) and the value(s) we espouse; we reflect on and critique our experience; we can be creative, but thoughtful, in our responses to that reflection and critique, and in how we attempt to integrate new content and ways of learning into the curriculum and engage ourselves and the learner. Evidence of all these elements can be seen at the Learning in Law conferences every year, and as illustrations I will highlight one or two of the issues Avrom and Sally raised.

While the two keynotes addressed the law curriculum from different perspectives, they both considered aspects of evolution and change. In ‘Language cuckoos, cultural hegemony and legal education in the EU: the “commonisation” of European law’, Avrom explored foreign language provision in law schools, prompted by an e-mail he had received from the University of Rome III, asking him to consider, for another keynote address, if English is the ‘lingua franca’ of the lawyer, in the sense in which lawyers use English to communicate, study and write. Through ‘mini-research’, he had investigated language provision in law schools in Italy and Germany. In summary, it is a requirement in Italy that every law school provides some foreign language education, and it appears that 32 out of 43 law schools in Italy offer English language learning in some form. As for Germany, “every student must pass one foreign law class taught in a foreign language, or a law-based foreign language class”. Approaches range from internships in an English speaking law environment to computer-based tests and input from visiting lecturers.

I would question whether such approaches do in fact make English the lingua franca of lawyers, the cuckoo pushing everything else out of the nest, as English is merely one of several options, but clearly there is a perception of a need for broader training. It is worth noting that by comparison much less is offered in the UK by way of language training in law schools, which is not necessarily surprising, of course, as the English are notoriously poor at encouraging foreign language learning.

What is not clear is precisely why such language training has been required. It may be a response to globalisation and an American influence. Consequently, as Avrom suggested, is it that there is less interest in the English language per se and in English common law, but rather a (worrying) tendency towards an acceptance of US (pre)dominance? Food for thought.

I was struck by another point that Avrom made – learning a language is of little real use unless it is accompanied by some knowledge or understanding of the cultural environment in which that language exists and develops. This I would endorse. Law itself has a language all of its own, which can present a challenge to many of our own first year law undergraduates. Law is also inseparably linked to society, culture and underlying values, and meaningful understanding of it cannot be achieved without knowing something of those. To consider this more broadly, we know of the benefits of contextual learning, and simulations such as those being developed in UKCLE’s SIMPLE project. Must it not therefore be even more challenging for Italian and German students to learn a different language of law in the language of a different country? Do they gain from such study if they are merely learning grammatical or legal rules without reference to the relevant cultural background?

Turning now to Sally’s address, she had set herself the challenge of addressing each of the conference keywords under the heading of ‘Curriculum design challenges for 21st century legal education’. Throughout Sally called for a more integrative approach to legal education and the design of the law curriculum. She drew on her experience at Queensland University of Technology and the range of reports and consultations on legal education that have emerged from England and Wales, Scotland, the US and Australia, but with particular reference to the Carnegie Foundation’s 2007 Educating lawyers report.

Sally focused on the need for greater integration of skills, not just ‘lawyering’ skills, but more generic ‘employability’ skills, and a move away from the traditional split between theory and practice. With, for example, the changing agenda for legal services, and a need for a ’reality check’ on what students require in terms of preparation, it is vital to examine if the current content of the law curriculum will be relevant for students by the time they get into practice. Granted Sally approached the issue from an Australian point of view, where there is a greater presumption of law students going into practice. It is nonetheless relevant to consider the issue in a wider context, with UK government emphasis on skills and ‘workforce development’. In fact, the very same question was asked in the panel session at Learning in Law Annual Conference, referred to below, at which the law degree and its focus was debated.

Legal education is evolving in response to the many challenges it faces, whether globalisation, government policies, changes in legal services provision or student finance issues. Institutions may feel pressure to change as new law degrees emerge. As evolution is defined as involving gradual change, an element of progression, it is important that there is considered development of legal education, despite the fact that external factors and pressures change rapidly. Yes, legal education must keep pace with, to quote Sally, “these dynamic changes”, but the reaction must not be a knee jerk one.

To echo Ann Holmes in the panel discussion session on the law degree at Learning in Law Annual Conference, institutions must think carefully about what is right for them. Further, where possible, the progress of legal education needs to be viewed holistically. A single forum can assist in this, and I would support Susan Blake (also speaking in the panel discussion session) when she suggested that Learning in Law Annual Conference is one such forum.
Long may it continue.

Last Modified: 9 July 2010