Law schools and pro bono work: the public service and educational potential

This paper, presented by Richard Grimes (Director of Pro Bono Services and Clinical Education at the College of Law) to the Attorney General’s Pro Bono Committee in February 2003, is intended as a starting point for discussion on the benefits of promoting pro bono work in law schools.

---

In the UK there are around 80 colleges and universities offering degree and vocational qualifications in law. An estimated 30,000 students study law on degree or related programmes.

Over the past two years at the College of Law (the country’s largest law school) approximately one half of all registered students have indicated their willingness to get involved in pro bono work. This amounts to almost 2,500 students. Their reasons for doing so may be many, but if this pattern is repeated across the country, there must be a very substantial number of students studying law who could become involved in a pro bono context.

The nature of work which students do and could become involved in is varied, ranging from voluntary sessions in a local advice centre organised independently of the law school to fully integrated clinical programmes. Law school staff directly supports some of this pro bono work, while other schemes rely on external organisations. The work undertaken is broadly of three types:

• the provision of legal services (advice and/or representation) by students
• assistance by students in the pro bono provision of legal services delivered by qualified practitioners
• rights and responsibility awareness and training

A study of law schools and pro bono activity was carried out two years ago by Sarah Browne (A survey of pro bono activity by students in law schools in England and Wales, Solicitors Pro Bono Group, 2000). This revealed that students were engaged in pro bono work in 43% of the law schools responding to the survey (90% of law schools did respond). A further 17 % of law schools planned to involve students in such work. Only 12% of law schools responding specified that they would not consider pro bono activity for law students.

There is however relatively little information available on the detail of who does what and where. Research was carried out in 1994 on clinical legal education, but this is now too dated to be valuable here. A bid has been made by Hugh Brayne (Sunderland University) and Richard Grimes (College of Law) to the UK Centre of Legal Education for funds to compile a directory of law schools’ pro bono and clinical activity, backed by the Solicitors Pro Bono Group. The project has been approved and the directory is expected to be ready within the next 18 months – see the project information page for further information.

Notwithstanding the current lack of hard data on law school activity, it is suggested that the potential for law school and student involvement is considerable.

This paper looks at the pro bono models that currently exist for student involvement and then examines the benefits and challenges implicit in such a development. It goes on to identify who has to be convinced of what, if student pro bono activity is to be supported and concludes with suggestions as to how progress may be made from the current position.

The paper as a whole is intended to facilitate discussion within the Attorney General’s Pro Bono Committee and lead to more effective promotion and co-ordination of pro bono activity.

The models

As Browne’s survey revealed pro bono activity varied enormously across the law student and law school population. There are two general categories of activity – that which sees the student active in pro bono work but where there is no direct link back to their law course, and that which forms a structured part of the student’s programme of study. Both are considered of value, but different benefits and challenges arise in each case.

Pro bono activity for law students that does not form part of their studies

In these schemes students volunteer to become active in pro bono work, for example working in a law centre, citizens advice bureau or through a free representation unit. They work according to the operational rules of the relevant organisation, which normally provides the necessary supervision and co-ordination. The benefits to the organisation where the student works, to the student him or herself and to members of the public served by the organisation may be considerable. An opportunity however may have been lost, in terms of extracting from the experience the full educational potential of the student experience. However, where the law student becomes active in pro bono work by supporting the pro bono work of qualified practitioners there may be ways in which the qualified practitioner can, in conjunction with the law school, assist in the realisation of the educational potential of the experience.

Student pro bono activity as part of a programme of study

In each of the models described below the pro bono activity is set up by the law school and the student experience is deconstructed by the law school staff (with or without input from others, including practitioners). The activity therefore becomes more than just an expansion of public legal service and forms part of the wider educational process. The educational term often used for this is ‘active’ or ‘reflective learning’. This form of legal education is also termed ‘clinical’, with the obvious medical analogy. Time and space is built into a clinical programme for the law school staff and students to critically analyse what happened and why.

The student pro bono schemes that do form part of the student’s course of study can be summarised as follows:

• In-house clinics – in this model the law school offers a service to clients using facilities either located within the university or college or made available as an outreach service run by the law school. The help offered to clients may be limited to advice only, or may extend to further assistance including representation. There are several examples of such law school ‘clinics’. The universities of Kent, Northumbria and Sheffield Hallam are long standing examples of legal practices staffed by students under the supervision of qualified lawyers. Each operates as a solicitor’s practice within the law school. These clinics offer a full range of legal services to the client. Where the students do not have rights of audience agents or counsel are instructed. The University of Manchester has, more recently, opened an advice centre based in a shopping centre adjacent to the main campus. The College of Law has three advice centres at its Birmingham, Chester and London branches. The College also has a tribunal representation unit, currently limited to rent assessment cases. This is an outreach service, with a room at the tribunal’s head quarters in London. Birkbeck, Keele, de Montfort, Plymouth, University College London (UCL), Warwick and Westminster have either had, have, or are currently discussing having, in-house clinics. Some of these initiatives rely entirely on internal staffing (for example Kent, Northumbria and Sheffield Hallam) whilst others (for example Manchester and UCL) have local barristers and solicitors acting as supervisors and mentors. At Kent for example cases are regularly referred to the Bar Pro Bono Unit, with the clinic remaining involved alongside the barrister instructed.
   
  Feedback from all those connected with in-house clinics, including clients, students, supervisors and practitioners, has been very positive. The difficulties, such as there have been, are noted below.

• Placement clinics – this model sees the law student working in organisations external to the law school. The extent of the student’s involvement in casework varies considerably from one situation to another. Students may shadow a qualified lawyer or para-legal, or may take considerable responsibility for case progression.
   
  Known as ‘externships’ in the USA (where this model of clinic is widely used) the student gains experience of legal practice by working in the placement setting. This might be a law centre or citizens advice bureau, with a tenants association or other community-based group, or in private legal practice, commerce or the public sector. The law school (and hence educational) component consists of organising the placement and then deconstructing the experience with the student after the event. There are several examples of the placement clinic model in UK law schools, including at Queen’s University Belfast and the College of Law. Many other providers encourage students to undertake placements, but relatively few at present have developed this to provide a structured and reflective learning opportunity. In placement clinics the students effectively support the delivery of advice and/or representation by assisting qualified practitioners and other service providers.
   
  Free representation units (FRUs) are a very important, and perhaps the most pro-active, example of this second model. FRUs offer a specialist representative service in tribunals. After undergoing a rigorous induction procedure (which normally consists of a training course, observation of a case being conducted and writing several opinions) the volunteer (who may be a law student or qualified lawyer) is then accredited to represent clients in cases before tribunals. Experienced caseworkers are on hand to offer supervision, support and guidance.
   
  Placements are a logistically straightforward and cost effective way of getting students involved in pro bono and clinical work. As well as offering advice and in some case representation, the student contribution can also consist of performing reception and administrative duties, carrying out legal research and note-taking in interviews. There have been good examples of this type of scheme among the entries for the SPBG Student Pro Bono Challenge, including the winning entry (2001) from the Oxford Institute of Legal Practice. The reception and administration work undertaken maximises appropriate public access to qualified advice on a range of subjects. The student contribution can ensure that finite practitioner time is used efficiently, by concentrating on the delivery of advice and other help. The model increases the prospect of involvement of qualified practitioners at the same time as achieving involvement of students. The legal research and note-taking work brings the students into active contact with qualified practitioners and clients. Close ties could result between law school and law firm. Discussions that took place during the last National Pro Bono Week provide another illustration of the potential of this theme.
   
  This model carries obvious advantages in terms of:
  • the quality of delivery
  • the access to and extent of the assistance that can be offered to clients
  • the learning opportunity where the law student and the qualified practitioner or other service provider work together
  • the potential for increasing the effective involvement of both qualified practitioners, other service providers and law students at the same time, rather than through law students and academic staff alone

This differs from model described above in that the student experience is integrated into their overall legal studies. The tasks completed by the students may be the same, but the educational objectives form a built-in component in this model.

• Street law – the third model is a relatively recent development, at least so far as this country is concerned. It involves law students working with community-based organisations to provide legal literacy classes. The audiences to date have included prisoners, school pupils, tenants, single parents, volunteers in the not for profit sector and parents at a college open day. This ‘rights and responsibilities’ education has proved highly successful and complements the wider citizenship agenda. The College of Law has pioneered this initiative in England. Queen’s University, Belfast has been working on a human rights focused street law programme in Northern Ireland, and programmes have also started at Derby, de Montfort, Sheffield Hallam and Sunderland. At a recent conference (June 2002) strong interest was expressed by a number of law schools in this model. (The term ‘street law’ is based on a concept developed by Street Law Inc of Washington DC, USA – a not for profit organisation that promotes law, democracy and human rights education. It has been adapted for use in this context with the knowledge and consent of Street Law Inc.)
  If a pro bono scheme is offered by the law school in an educational context, a number of questions arise:

• Should the activity be assessed?
• Does this need to be internally and externally accredited?
• Who will supervise the activity?
• Is the activity caught by professional practice rules?
• Is professional indemnity insurance required?
• How will the activity be timetabled?
• Can the experience be used across programme modules?

These issues are significant issues for law schools, and generally. Many, if not all, of these issues have been addressed by existing schemes. Information and guidance can be obtained from the Clinical Legal Education Organisation (CLEO).

The benefits

If the potential for student and law school led pro bono activity is great why should such activity be encouraged? In other words what are the benefits of such work? These can be summarised as follows:

For the public

• gives access to free legal services
• provides access in the local community
• addresses otherwise unmet legal needs
• increases awareness of rights and responsibilities
• provides an active referral service, linking with existing legal service providers

For the student

• acquires legal, transferable and personal skills
• develops knowledge of legal rules and procedures
• engages with a range of ethical and professional practice considerations
• has the opportunity to apply skills and knowledge in a working context
• develops self-confidence
• instils a commitment to pro bono work

For the profession

• inherits better students in terms of ability and experience
• improves self image through activity in pro bono work
• increases levels of motivating of staff through exposure of pro bono work

For participating organisations

• increases capacity through involvement of students, law teachers and other voluteers
• produces pool of committed and competent advisers
• develops links with other providers, thus improving networks and creating more ‘joined-up’ provision

For the government

• increases level of service provision
• increases capacity (production of future lawyers and para-legals)
• addresses ‘active citizenship’ agenda
• uses resources to maximum effect
• expands the pool of practitioners committed to pro bono work

For law schools

• improves teaching and learning strategies
• improves recruitment potential
• improves retention rates
• develops links with legal practice and the wider community

The challenges

In order to develop pro bono involvement in law schools a number of challenges must be faced. This will no doubt initiate a debate on the value and mechanics, and on the focus and direction, of pro bono activity involving law students.

These challenges can be described as:

• The political – the extent to which law schools are or ought to be involved in the provision of legal services is potentially problematic. There are many aspects to this. Questions that are often raised include: Should be the public be exposed to student law practitioners? Is the practice of law a proper cause of concern for law schools? With the financial constraints implicit in publicly funded legal work is it acceptable that law schools and their staff and students impact on the provision of legal services and the funding of them? There are credible responses to these issues but, none the less, the issues are real concerns, often articulated by law school management, private legal practice and the professional bodies.
• Quality assurance – involving students in pro bono work raises ‘quality’ considerations both in relation to the work that the student becomes involved in and in an academic context (if the pro bono experience forms part of the student’s course of study). Contact with the client and organisations external to the law school can and, it is suggested must, be monitored and regulated through structured supervision. This may be carried out by professionally qualified staff at the law school (as, for example, in the clinics at Kent, Northumbria and Sheffield Hallam) and/or through the use of practising lawyers (as occurs in the advice centres operating at the Birmingham branch of the College of Law and at the University of Manchester). If the pro bono service concerned has been awarded the Legal Service Commission’s quality mark, an additional set of quality assurance checks applies.

The academic quality of student pro bono work will, if the activity is an assessed part of the programme, be subject to the internal quality processes of the educational provider and any validatory requirements imposed by the professional regulatory body. If the student is to be given academic credit for the work they do on pro bono matters the assessment of that work poses particular challenges. The nature and equivalence of the student experience and the assessment of individual and group work are significant issues. At the College of Law progress has been made on resolving some of these issues, and details can be made available on request.

• Staffing – any pro bono scheme, if it is to be effective, will need to be administered and supervised by staff who have the background and time to ensure the smooth operation of any such initiative. If requisite staff time is given voluntarily, this may not be a major challenge. Experience suggests however that the time taken to set up and run such programmes is considerable and this must be factored into the design. At the very least, there needs to be a contact point at any participating law school. The importance of law school staff can also be seen in terms of preserving continuity – reliable and identifiable staff are needed to ensure successful operation, especially where organisations external to the law school are involved.
   
  It is also helpful to have a manual that sets out the ground rules for participation, the protocols applicable and the expectations of and for clients, students and staff. A centrally available manual, or template for a manual from which a local manual might be assembled, could assist law schools across the country with detailed guidance (based on experience elsewhere) on structuring and running a pro bono scheme.
• Other resources – linked to the staffing issue are several resourcing concerns. Paying for staff time, premises, equipment and general running costs can be a major, if not insurmountable, challenge. If the pro bono activity is a formal part of student assessment then the law school must bear some, if not all, of the cost of provision. The University of Manchester has, for example, secured money from HEFCE to help fund part of their advice centre development, on the basis that this work represents a major development on the learning and teaching front. Other institutions have raised funds from regional government regeneration monies (for example, the College of Law, under the New Deal for Communities scheme). Others receive help in kind or through sponsorship. As direct service providers, law schools may be eligible for funding from the Legal Services Commission under the Community Legal Service initiative, utilising either the contract, grant or Partnership Initiatives Budget schemes.
• Knowledge and skills – clinical legal education directly addresses substantive law and related procedures, as well as legal and transferable skills. There is a long standing view held by some law schools (predominantly and in the old university sector) that an overt skills component does not belong in the context of undergraduate study. Whilst this attitude is perhaps less prevalent today, nonetheless there can be a tension at faculty level when clinical and pro bono programmes are introduced.

Planning the logistics of a pro bono scheme in a law school must address the resource considerations. At the 2002 CLEO conference a session was dedicated to fundraising. Regular updates on funding possibilities need to be issued. CLEO may be the body to fill this role.

• Insurance – it is inevitable that in any setting where advice and assistance is given that mistakes are made. Clear procedures and competent staffing may mitigate against such eventualities, but cannot eliminate entirely the risks implicit in such professional work. Legal practitioners are obliged to carry indemnity insurance. Depending on the nature of the pro bono activity, insurance may be a professional practice requirement. It may be held by an organisation in which students work. In any event it is advisable for such insurance cover to be in place to protect all concerned – clients, students, staff and the educational provider. Law schools may be interested to know that a number of existing in-house clinics have managed to extend the university or college insurance policy to include pro bono activity at no additional premium. Details can be provided on request.
• Knowledge of referral options – where a clinic is in a position to offer initial advice only, it is vital that the clinic has specific knowledge of referral options (both public funded and pro bono) that can be expected to assist the particular client with the particular matter. General advice about a range of other possible sources of help will frequently not be enough. To this end the challenge is to ensure there is a close relationship between the law schools and law students, local practitioners, and bodies offering pro bono referral schemes (such as Bar Pro Bono Unit, Solicitors Pro Bono Group – now LawWorks, the Free Representation Unit and Circuit FR schemes). It needs to be understood that referral can mean, where appropriate, bringing specialist help in, and not just sending the client away from the clinic and on to somewhere else. Where the clinic can remain involved to assist on a referral there are many advantages: the client remains supported by the clinic, a referral agency may be able to offer more help than if the clinic did not remain involved, and the law students concerned learn more.

Who needs to be persuaded?

There is already considerable support for a pro bono dimension in law schools.

At a governmental level, the Lord Chancellor’s Department, the Attorney General’s Office, the Prison Service and the Department for Education and Skills have all expressed interest in the involvement of law school staff and students in pro bono work.

In the not for profit sector, the Law Centres Federation and member centres, the Solicitors Pro Bono Group (now LawWorks), the Bar’s Pro Bono Unit and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux have all recognised the role law schools might play in contributing to the promotion and delivery of pro bono work.

Several law firms have given their support to law school pro bono activity at a national and local level. Examples of firms providing such input include: Clifford Chance, Clyde and Co, Eversheds, Masons, Simmons and Simmons and Wragge and Co.

In law schools there has perhaps been a less discernible move to support pro bono activity. Some individual providers have been at the forefront of this development but there has not, as yet, been any endorsement of the role of the law school in this field through such representative bodies as the Committee of Heads of University Law Schools (CHULS), the Society of Legal Scholars (SLS – formerly SPTL) or the Association Law Teachers (ALT). The ALT’s journal, The Law Teacher, does however regularly feature articles on clinical legal education. UKCLE is highly supportive of clinical work and by implication the relevance of pro bono work within law schools and are funding a research project that will document the extent of clinical and pro bono activity in law schools in the UK, leading to the production of a directory of such activity.

The Law Society and General Council of the Bar have encouraged discussion of pro bono and clinical work in law schools through conference presentations. The Bar Council has actively encouraged, through the work of its Senior Education Officer, a hands-on approach to study on the Bar Vocational Course. Officers in the Education and Training Department at the Law Society have expressed interest in similar developments in relation to the Legal Practice and conversion (CPE) courses. There is a continuing need for both bodies to address the value of pro bono work in general and clinical study in particular at both the undergraduate and vocational stages. The Joint Announcement of the Bar and Law Society on the structure and content of the qualifying law degree remains (despite recent revision) silent on pro bono activity in law schools and on the means by which the law curriculum might be delivered. This stands in contrast to the American Bar Association accreditation rules. Discussion on the role of law schools so far as pro bono matters are concerned is overdue.

Proposals

To promote awareness of pro bono work in law schools and to develop the range of pro bono activity possible in this context, there is a need for discussion and action. The Attorney General’s Pro Bono Committee is ideally placed to instigate both. The Committee has considered this paper and asked for it to be distributed to law schools and other interested stakeholders. This will no doubt initiate a debate on the value and mechanics of student-focused pro bono activity.

A set of proposals for taking the debate forward could include:

• a steering committee to produce an action plan for developing pro bono activity in law schools
• a conference on law school involvement in pro bono activity – at such an event the directory of pro bono and clinical work (described above) might be launched
• the funding of a secretariat to co-ordinate student pro bono activity and disseminate information to law schools and legal service providers on pro bono opportunities, best practice and delivery models
• this resource might be attached to an existing organisation such as CLEO, the Solicitors Pro Bono Group (now LawWorks) or UKCLE – this unit could act as a repository for materials and make such available to law schools and other interested groups in hard copy and electronic form, and also represent law schools in their relationship with the main pro bono referral schemes, assisting in ensuring that clinics with law school involvement have full information on referral schemes
• the production of a regular update on pro bono activity, perhaps a newsletter
• workshops on pro bono work in law schools – these might be held at regular intervals to promote pro bono and clinical models and to share best practice
• the creation of a national award at institutional level to recognise and support pro bono activity in law schools – this could bring much needed additional funding as well as attendant publicity for the recipient university or college

If resources are required to action any or all of the suggested proposals, support could be attracted from a variety of sources. The Lord Chancellor’s Department may be interested in such a development. The Legal Services Commission, particularly through the Partnership Initiatives Bid or by contract or grant funding, could also be a possible source of financial backing. Law firms may also be willing to assist.

Last Modified: 4 June 2010