Thursday, April 29, 2021

Very Troubling Report on ABA Experiential Requirement

Robert Kuehn has produced a thorough, but troubling, report on the effect of the new six-credit requirement in ABA Standard 303(a)(3).  Simply stated, the new requirement has made very little change in law students' ability to take hands-on classes.

TaxProf Blog op-ed:  Implementation of the ABA’s New Experiential Training Requirement: More Whimper Than Bang, by Robert Kuehn

Excerpts:

"When the ABA adopted a new experiential training requirement in 2014, there was hope it would spur law schools to significantly change the way they prepared students for legal practice. The new six-credit requirement in ABA Standard 303(a)(3) was less than the fifteen credits proposed by some educators and did not include a mandate for a law clinic or externship experience. Nonetheless, the six credits were an improvement over the ABA’s previous “substantial instruction” in professional skills requirement.[1] But data from the initial implementation of the new experiential requirement suggest its effect has been more of a whimper than the bang some hoped for, with little evidence it has spurred legal education to enhance the ability of students to get hands-on training in professional skills."

"Data from the first two years of the new six-credit requirement in 2019 and 2020 show no increase in the positions available to students in clinics or simulations and even a decrease in actual enrollment in field placement courses, when normalized to address fluctuations in nationwide law school enrollment. While some law schools have made important changes to their curriculum, the graph below indicates that, on average, schools have not reported positive changes in law clinic, field placement, or simulation data since the ABA’s adoption of the new experiential standard in 2014."

"The New York Court of Appeals followed the ABA in 2015 with its own new skills competency standard for bar candidates, proclaiming that 'the goal of ensuring effective, ethical and responsible legal services in New York requires more than what the new ABA Standards provide. . . .'  The graph below shows that the New York competency standard, indeed, does not appear to have spurred New York’s law schools to noticeably enhance their professional skills training of students or to provide more training than schools in states following only the ABA requirement."

"Data from the recent Center for the Study of Applied Legal Education (CSALE) 2019-20 Survey of Applied Legal Education of 95% of law schools also show little measurable effect from the new experiential training standard."

Why has there been so little progress? "In both surveys, however, significant numbers of schools simply restructured existing courses to meet the experiential training definition, including merely relabeling parts of the first-year required legal writing course as 'experiential' or offering a one-credit simulation component to a doctrinal course."

In sum, "To the extent the ABA’s new six-credit experiential requirement was intended to provide law students with more meaningful hands-on training in important professional skills, its own data do not show that intended result. In addition, surveys of schools on their implementation of the new training requirement do not show significant gains in skills training as a result of the new accreditation standard."

Professor Kuehn asserts, "It is time for the ABA to address these deficiencies by at a minimum requiring schools to report actual enrollments in law clinic and simulation courses so that the ABA can truly judge the effect of its requirement and prospective applicants to law schools will not continue to be potentially deceived by reports of ethereal “available” law clinic opportunities.

Yet students, and the clients they will soon represent in practice, deserve more than just enhanced reporting requirements. The ABA’s six-credit experiential requirement remains far below the skills training other professional schools require of their students. Two recent studies on legal education have highlighted the need for greatly enhanced skills training, including mandatory clinical training prior to bar licensing. The ABA should heed these calls for reform and revisit the proposals for fifteen-credits of experiential coursework and a mandatory, live-client clinical experience for all J.D. students."

(Scott Fruehwald)

 

 

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_skills/2021/04/troublimg-report-on-aba-ecperiental-requirenent.html

| Permalink

Comments

From Prof. Kuehn's full article:

"It is time for the ABA to address these deficiencies by at a minimum requiring schools to report actual enrollments in law clinic and simulation courses so that the ABA can truly judge the effect of its requirement and prospective applicants to law schools will not continue to be potentially deceived by reports of ethereal “available” law clinic opportunities.[6]

[6] One school with enrollments of approximately 300 students per class claimed in its 2018 509 Required Disclosure to prospective applicants over 1,500 seats available to students in its law clinics. Another school with a class of 100 reported over 300 clinic positions available, yet only 50 students actually enrolled in those purported available positions."

Honest question: if schools are indeed being misleading or false on their 509 disclosures, why aren't they being held to account?

Let us remember 509(a): "All information that a law school reports, publicizes, or distributes shall be complete, accurate and not misleading to a reasonable law school student or applicant. A law school shall use due diligence in obtaining and verifying such information. Violations of these obligations may result in sanctions under Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools. "

And it's not as if this is the only instance or area where law schools routinely engage in 509-questionable conduct. Or for that matter, areas that 509 doesn't cover but really should. What is the point of having accreditation standards at all if the accreditor is unwilling to enforce them? I see to remember NACIQI asking this a few years ago before recommending that the Department of Education remove the ABA's accreditory powers for a year.

Posted by: Unemployed Northeastern | Jul 2, 2021 1:45:46 PM

Post a comment