May 19, 2010 – Last year, legal professionals, and experts in the field of legal education gathered to discuss how law schools and CLE programs can address the changing skill set necessary to be successful in the practice of law.
The American Law Institute-American Bar Association Continuing Professional Education (ALI-ABA) and the Association for Continuing Legal Education (ACLEA) recently published a final report from its October 2009 Critical Issues Summit entitled “Equipping Our Lawyers: Law School Education, Continuing Legal Education, and Legal Practice in the 21st Century.”
In the 23 years since the last conference of its kind, much has changed. Certain factors – the Internet, advanced technology, competition, global practice, and generational differences, to name a few – have transformed the dynamics of law and lawyering.
Nearly 150 professionals from across the country − including CLE providers and regulators, law school educators, and law practitioners – discussed lawyer training and education for successful practice in today’s world. The summit’s final report reflects the recommendations of six working groups.
The report’s recommendations focus largely on the tools necessary for new lawyers to transition from law school to practice, as well as the “evolving modes and standards for regulation of CLE and their potential impact on creating CLE that best meets lawyer needs.”
Transitioning from law school to practice
The report’s recommendations call on law schools to “consider more rigorous efforts to help their students obtain the core competencies needed for practice.”
One core competency is practical knowledge, and law schools have been encouraged to “bridge the gap between analytical and practical knowledge.” Both the Marquette University and the University of Wisconsin law schools offer clinical and internship opportunities that allow students to apply substantive law in real world situations.
In addition, U.W. Law School Dean Kenneth Davis Jr. commissioned a professional skills task force last fall to assess ways to improve professional skills instruction. Composed of faculty members and practicing lawyers, the task force is studying ways to “better prepare students in terms of the qualities needed to practice law today,” said Ralph Cagle, clinical professor of law and task force co-chair.
“The fundamental curriculum of law schools in general has not changed a whole lot in the last 100 years,” Cagle said. “We want to reassess how our curriculum can better relate to daily practice.”
The task force will hold statewide sessions to gather information from practicing lawyers on what is needed for new lawyers to be prepared at an earlier stage, according to Cagle.
One concern identified in the report is that law schools don’t address the nitty-gritty of law practice – the sort of “business side” to building an efficient practice. Of course, not all law students aspire to practice in a traditional law firm setting. But many do.
“If new lawyers don’t understand things like client relations, technology, trust accounting, billing, timekeeping – the business side to running a practice − then they won’t have time to provide actual legal services,” said Nerino Petro, Law Office Management Assistance Program advisor at the State Bar of Wisconsin.
In addition, rollbacks on summer clerkships and internships have reduced hands-on-learning opportunities in law firms. Reduced law firm hiring means recent graduates may rely on solo or contract work, or seek positions that don’t offer big-firm resources.
The report encourages transitional training programs that begin in law school and continue through at least the first two years of practice. These “post-admission supervised apprenticeships” would ensure that new lawyers have access to more experienced ones.
It highlighted the Transition into Law Practice Program offered by the State Bar of Georgia. The program is designed to “afford every beginning lawyer newly admitted to the State Bar of Georgia with meaningful access to an experienced lawyer equipped to teach the practical skills, seasoned judgment, and sensitivity to ethical and professionalism values necessary to practice law in a highly competent manner.”
In the five years since the Georgia Supreme Court authorized the program, approximately 4,600 beginning lawyers have completed it or are currently enrolled and more than 2,700 experienced lawyers have been appointed as mentors.
“Overall, the program has been a tremendous success,” said program Director Douglas Ashworth. In evaluations of the program, a participating mentor commented that his faith in the profession had been restored and a beginning lawyer commented that the program creates “a safe place to ask a stupid question,” Ashworth said.
The report recommends initiating a post-summit project to determine the steps necessary to design a model approach to “bridge-the-gap transitional training programs” similar to the one at the State Bar of Georgia.
CLE credit for the “business of lawyering”
The report strongly recommends that CLE regulators allow accreditation for training that is not directly related to substantive law and also that CLE providers, regulators, lawyers, and judges “should communicate to create frameworks for mandatory CLE rules to ensure all parties share an understanding of the content of the rules and their needed evolution.”
Those in favor of the recommendation argue that “effective client service requires lawyers to be good managers of their time and offices, skilled managers of the financial aspects of running a practice, and knowledgeable in areas that do not necessarily involve substantive law.”
The summit conferees note that some jurisdictions deny accreditation for CLE courses on “practice management, computer usage, or other skills lawyers need but do not relate directly to substantive law.” The conferees also argue that lawyer disciplinary matters involving practice management far outweigh those involving a lack of substantive law awareness.
Wisconsin’s Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) approves CLE courses under Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 31.07, standards for approval of CLE activities. In Wisconsin, active licensed attorneys need 30 CLE credits every two calendar years.
Under SCR 31.07, the BBE generally rejects programs that do not contain some aspect of substantive law or skills the BBE views as professional lawyer skills, said State Bar CLE Director Bill Connors.
For instance, the State Bar’s Law Office Management Section recently presented Considerations for Starting a Law Practice, and Hanging Out a Shingle: Vital Steps to Avoid New Practice Pitfalls is available on CLE On-demand. Parts of these programs will not qualify for CLE credit based on the BBE’s current interpretation of SCR 31.07, Connors said.
The State Bar believes it is important to offer these programs even if they do not qualify for credit, but seeks a dialogue with BBE on which types of skills and knowledge should be accredited. The report has been sent to the BBE for review.
“The reality is, given a choice between a program that qualifies for CLE credit and one that does not, many lawyers will choose the program that qualifies for the CLE regardless of their need for the information in the one that doesn’t,” Connors said.
Currently, the State Bar’s 411 Practice program assists lawyers in improving their efficiency in the delivery of legal services and in implementing systems and controls to reduce risk and improve client relations. In addition, the State Bar addresses the business of lawyering at the Wisconsin Solo & Small Firm Conference, the Annual Convention, and through various CLE programs and future multi-day CLE institutes.
Other State Bar member benefits − including free legal research, CLE publications and seminars, ethics and assistance programs, and other programs and services – address the needs of beginning and experienced attorneys in all areas of practice.
Additional report recommendations
• Law schools should examine teaching methods and the content of curricula to ensure that graduates are capable of serving as effective beginning professionals.
• Regulatory authorities should consider restructuring one-time bar examinations into phased examinations over time, linked in part to attainment of legal practice skills.
• CLE providers, regulators, and the practicing bar, should develop appropriate accreditation standards for all varieties of distance learning CLE programs while also updating and improving accreditation standards for in-person CLE programs.
• Regulators and CLE providers should develop a means of measuring the effectiveness of CLE offerings.
• Regulators should provide law firms with the same opportunities to gain accreditation of their programs as those afforded to external CLE providers.
• Summit conferees should initiate a post-summit project to determine the next steps toward: designing model approaches to competencies and bridge-the-gap transitional training programs; creating technology based information sharing; building support to address the recommendations; and developing mechanisms to create better access to resources, training, and mentoring for solo practitioners, small firms, and public interest organizations.
By Joe Forward, Legal Writer, State Bar of Wisconsin
