Moving on: new initiatives, new resources

Report on the 2002 CLEO conference

17 delegates, representing 14 institutions, attended the CLEO conference held at Coventry TechnoCentre on 12 January 2002. Fewer people attended both the CLEO and LILI events this year than last but, judging by the number of apologies received, this had more to do with timing than interest. In any event, on the basis that it was quality not quantity that mattered, the conference proceeded as planned!

At previous CLEO conferences (held in 1994, 1995 and 2000) the main focus of attention had been on the setting up and running of clinics. This year, reflecting the changing nature of the delivery of legal services, the CLEO conference took, as its starting point, the development of community-based initiatives and their funding. The conference also provided an opportunity for delegates to catch up on the current clinical ‘scene’ in domestic law schools.

Clinics at work

The morning session began with the introduction of delegates, the majority of whom were already involved in running or supporting clinics. To cater, in particular, for those who had not yet established a clinic at their law school, Richard Grimes (College of Law) gave a brief overview of models of clinical education. He identified a range of logistical and qualitative issues that needed to be addressed in considering whether and, if so, how a sustainable clinical programme could be maintained. ‘Clinical’ in this context was taken to mean a real (or realistic) scenario where the student is exposed, under professionally appropriate supervision, to the client and the legal and practical considerations implicit in their case, and where there is a requirement to evaluate or reflect on the experience undergone.

The four models described were:

• in-house, real-client, clinic – service provided and supervised by the law school. The service offered might range from initial advice to full representation. This model was likely to be the most resource intensive from the law school’s perspective, but was a model that offered a great deal to all participants and remained within the law school’s direct control.
• out-house or placement clinic – a service delivered by another provider (not the law school) and supervised by that provider. The supply of students and the reflective component remains the responsibility of the law school. This model has distinct resource and organisational attractions when viewed from the law school’s perspective, but a degree of control is conceded in the process.
• ‘street law’ clinic – here the student is introduced to a community-based setting, for example in a school or prison or with a tenants association or domestic violence support network. In agreement with the group they are intending to work with, the students research and prepare to deliver, material on rights and responsibilities. In this way both the students and the community group improve their levels of awareness. This double sided learning experience has proved highly popular in pilots carried out at the College of Law.
• simulation clinic – under this model students are introduced to realistic problems and asked to act out the various roles in and aspects of the case. The simulation should be made to replicate, as closely as possible, what might happen in practice. The simulation model is a very valuable teaching methodology, although in the student’s eyes may not have the instant appeal of involvement in an actual case. This model does have clear advantages in terms of case management and resouce implications.

Equipped with this background material delegates then began to discuss a number of key issues affecting the development and resourcing of clinics.

The client base for any real-client clinic might be wide and varied (as for example in an advice only clinic open to the general public). Clinics concentrating on particular specialisms (for example rent assessment panel representation or consumer protection) might enable law schools to develop expertise and more effectively regulate quality. Clinics might also usefully provide group or issue based services, rather than carry the more traditional solicitor/client caseloads. Helping a community group in their collective concerns might prove a valuable addition to more conventional legal service delivery.

The importance of professional indemnity insurance was seen as a vital constituent of any real-client clinical programme. As well as offering protection to institution, adviser and client alike, the holding of insurance had educational implications, with students being introduced to a range of ‘compliance’ and professional practice considerations. Some clinics relied on insurance cover through an extension to the institution’s main policy, others took out cover with the Federation of Independent Advice Centres (FIAC). The advantage of the former is that it would appear that no insurer has yet levied any additional premium for covering clinical work. The resources needed to secure indemnity insurance seem in any event to be at the very most, modest. The conditions normally imposed for the grant of cover are that the clinic should handle no clients’ money and that all work must be supervised by a qualified professional. The use of disclaimers (getting the client to waiverights in the event of negligent advice) was seen by delegates as professionally and educationally undesirable (and probably legally ineffective!).

Those running clinics were frank about the supervisory and other staffing considerations. The full representation in-house model is highly resource intensive (with professionally appropriate supervision needed for all stages of the case and its management). In consequence such programmes tended to have a relatively small number of students participating. Typically student numbers were between 20 and 40 for a two semester clinic. The pressure to increase student numbers was, due to the popularity of the clinic with students, ever present. This could only be done, whilst maintaining quality, by either increasing supervisory input or limiting student involvement. The latter could be achieved by making the service advice only and then bringing in a fresh team of students for the next case. As well as the cost of providing adequate supervision, there was also the need for and expense of a programme of staff development, if colleagues were to acquire and expand their expertise. Links to possible sources of funding were highlighted including ‘hard’ funding (resources met by the law school from its own or the wider institution’s budget) and ‘soft’ sources (money from outside of the institution). Some of these were explored in the afternoon session.

The importance of finding suitable premises was suggested as a significant factor in real-client work. Any service must be capable of preserving client confidentiality as well as offering facilities that all users could be secure and comfortable in.

If the clinical experience is as important in the learning process as its exponents consider it to be, then a key issue in developing clinical work lies in the assessment of student performance. Experience suggests that students want to be assessed. They put considerable effort into the clinic and produce, in consequence, largely impressive results. Why should they not get credit for this? Delegates discussed the difficulties inherent in assessment generally and in the assessment of any reflective component, particularly where the tutor’s role in facilitating reflection might have been instrumental in shaping student output. The view of the professional regulatory bodies was also another consideration, especially in the context of overtly vocational courses. The conference agreed that further time should be given to assessment, as a dedicated topic for discussion, perhaps in the context of a special conference called to address that topic. Delegates were encouraged to share assessment and other clinically-oriented practices through e-mail exchange.

Getting new resources for your programmes

Having identified the key resourcing (and other operational) issues in the morning session, the afternoon was devoted to how to fund law school clinics. Nigel Duncan (Inns of Court School of Law/City) led the initial discussion. The principal expense of setting up and running a clinic consist of capital costs (premises, equipment and infrastructure) and recurrent expenditure (staffing, insurance and day to day office related items). Potential funders were (understandably) reluctant to meet the cost of the educational aspect of clinic (seeing this as an expense that should be borne by the institution). However there was considerable scope for attracting money from public and private sources to meet the cost of legal service delivery. A number of factors now made clinical legal education a potential contributor in this respect including the government’s social inclusion and citizenship agendas, the greater attention currently being given to pro bono work, the recent restructuring of publicly funded legal services and the availability of funds through local government ‘regeneration’ programmes.

The need for a greater degree of co-ordination of pro bono efforts was clearly needed and delegates agreed, if money could be secured for the purpose, that a person should be appointed to act as the focal point for publicising law school pro bono and clinical activity. Such a position might be located within the Solicitors Pro Bono Group. Sue Bucknall, Hugh Brayne and Richard Grimes volunteered to pursue this possibility and report back to CLEO members.

Sue Bucknall (Solicitors Pro Bono Group) then introduced two speakers who addressed the detail of public sector funding options.

The first, David Penn (Director of Planning and Marketing Services, University of Sunderland), presented an overview of financial support from government, beginning with national and European initiatives and working through to regional and local possibilities. A good starting point was said to be the European Structural Funds Objectives 1, 2 and 3, which apply, at least in part, to all areas of the country. These schemes focus in particular on capacity building and employability. Each university is likely to have a department whose job it was to explore these funding possibilities, and delegates were recommended to make contact with the relevant people for further information.

The second speaker, Stephen Templeman (Contracts Manager, Legal Services Commission: East Midlands) addressed the operation of the Community Legal Service (CLS). As the successor to the Legal Aid Fund the CLS represents a major shift in terms of legal service delivery. Emphasis was now on meeting established needs within locally set priorities. The importance of the CLS Partnerships (CLSP) was stressed and delegates were advised to join their local CLSP so as to be involved in current and on-going debates. A proposal for public funding under the CLS would need to show that it met, at least in part, a gap in legal service provision. (As highlighted in the regional strategic plan. Such a document exists in each Legal Services Commission region). If the proposal had, in addition, the backing of the local CLSP then it was more likely to be favourably received by the Legal Services Commission (LSC). As a dispenser of taxpayers’ money, the LSC owes a duty to ensure that funded programmes represent value for money. The funding formulae are however not set in stone, and the amount needed to fund one scheme (for example in a rural area where there was no other effective provider) may exceed that appropriate for a similar proposal but in a different context.

It is essential that any pro bono clinic wishing to take referrals or apply for funding from the LSC must be quality or kitemarked a procedure that is based on principles of best practice. Help could be given by the LSC and other agencies with quality mark applications. regional LSC offices have details.

Between them, the presentations raised three fundamental points:

• the importance of identifying and working in the context of local need
• the value of establishing partnerships with other providers and relevant agencies
• the significance of developing sustainable programmes that make use of the range of available sources including, where possible, matching funding

Due to time limitations, other funding opportunities including the Lotteries Board, the legal profession, other commercial sponsors, and charitable trusts and foundations, were not examined. Delegates agreed that a workshop dealing with funding options might prove useful later in the year, particularly as and when the outcome of some pending law school applications became known.

The conference drew to a close with a discussion of the community dimension to pro bono and clinical work. Hugh Brayne (University of Sunderland) described his involvement in a proposal to establish an advice and community development programme on Wearside. This project involved a number of existing organisations in the statutory and not for profit sectors. Funding was currently being sought from a number of sources including regeneration programmes and the Legal Services Commission. Again, the importance of law schools working alongside established providers and other pertinent organisations was stressed.

The final business of the conference was to look at a range of organisational issues affecting the structure and future activities of CLEO. Decisions on these issues can be summarised as follows:

• name – it was agreed that CLEO should keep its name, as although use of the word ‘clinical’ might mean little to outsiders, it has a well recognised meaning within legal education circles. A rider might in future be attached to the name to emphasise the potential for a community focus. Although the detail was left for a subsequent meeting a possibility suggested was: Clinical Legal Education Organisation – playing a role in the local community.
• response to consultative paper – the Law Society has recently published a consultative paper on legal education. Delegates agreed that CLEO should submit a response drawing attention to clinical work in law schools and illustrating the educational and legal service potential involved. Hugh Brayne agreed to prepare a first draft for circulation to CLEO members and conference delegates.
• conference report – delegates felt it was important to have a record of conference proceedings. Richard Grimes agreed to draft this and to e-mail it to delegates.
• annual conference – delegates felt that an annual conference was important and should be organised. Although UKCLE had been highly supportive of the past two CLEO conferences, attendance this year was disappointing, especially given the developments currently taking place in clinical legal education. It was agreed that the next CLEO conference should be organised as a free standing event and the College of Law agreed, in principle, to underwrite the cost and help organise the next event. Delegates are asked to let Richard Grimes know when such a conference might be held. A conference dealing specifically with street law was likely to take place in the early summer, and information would be circulated on this as soon as possible.

Richard Grimes
College of Law

Last Modified: 30 June 2010