Tag Archives: legal profession

reblogged from Dean Sossin's Blog | Osgoode’s Approach to the “Integrated” Law School LPP

can’t exaggerate the importance of this issue.

Dean Sossin’s Blog | Osgoode’s Approach to the “Integrated” Law School LPP.

 

April 4, 2014

In November, 2013, Convocation of the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) voted to approve Ryerson University and the University of Ottawa as the providers of the new, post-JD pathway to licensing, the “Law Practice Program” (LPP). Importantly, the LPP is a three year pilot project (with a possible extension of a further two years). At the same meeting of Convocation an application from Lakehead University’s new law school to deliver an “integrated practice curriculum” that would fully satisfy the new LPP requirements was unanimously approved. As a result, students graduating from Lakehead’s new three year program (its first graduating class will be in 2016) will not be required to article or take the LPP after graduation, but may move directly into the licensing process and write the licensing examinations. Subsequent to the November decisions, LSUC has indicated that it will entertain applications from other law schools wishing to offer an integrated practice curriculum that fully meets the skills and tasks competencies listed in the original Request for Proposals (RFP) for the LPP. 

In February of 2014, Osgoode’s faculty met to discuss the implications of the LPP for the J.D. program. Arising from that meeting, I have worked with a group of Osgoode faculty and senior administrators who volunteered to take a leadership role in gathering more information and broader perspectives on the issue. We hope this project, which is ongoing, will inform a broader discussion at Osgoode (and, potentially, across law schools and with the profession). We feel it important to signal that it is not the intention of Osgoode Hall Law School to make any application to the LSUC at this time. Osgoode’s final decision will have to wait for answers to the questions we raise below and until our discussion with the whole Osgoode community is complete. The considerations informing the conclusion of the working group are described briefly below.

 

1. Osgoode’s Ongoing Leadership in Experiential Learning

Osgoode has been—and continues to be—a leader in the continually evolving thinking about what constitutes a quality legal education that will enable graduates to flourish in a varied and dynamic professional environment. We have had an ongoing discussion about the importance of clinical education and experiential learning for decades. We have had two major curriculum reforms in the recent past and multiple strategic planning processes. The resulting vision we have developed of experiential learning and reflective professionalism at Osgoode seems significantly broader than the view of “tasks,” “skills,” and “competencies” reflected in the LSUC’s Pathways Report and the RFP for the LPP. For example, our understanding of the educational value of “competencies” differs from the use that is made of this concept in the requirements for an Accredited Law Degree—particularly in the context of today’s exciting, complex and pluralistic profession. The Lakehead program has been very intentionally constructed with a particular practice vision in mind, one suited to practice in Ontario’s northern communities. Osgoode’s program, by contrast, seeks to prepare students for a multiplicity of professional roles in a wide array of practice contexts.

2. Uncertainty and Ambiguity

The LPP is itself a pilot project, and we are keenly interested in whether and how well the specified regulatory objectives are met by the project, and what other effects the LPP might have on, for example, articling. We would also need to know more about the plan for evaluation of the Lakehead integrated curriculum and how the graduates of that program are received by the profession upon graduation. 

There are operational uncertainties regarding the LPP. For instance, the LSUC has not indicated how work placements are to be secured or what will happen if there are fewer placements than students. In the event of chronic shortages, questions arise about the viability of sustaining the LPP even over the short term. Serious questions also persist as to the impact of LPP placements on the ongoing availability of clinical placements, and vice-versa. Recently, law students were surprised and concerned by the way that the implementation of the LPP has significantly changed the cost of the LSUC licensing process. No doubt there will be more issues and challenges as the roll out of the LPP continues.

The environment is shifting fast and Osgoode will want to fix on a path only after serious deliberation, consultation and reflection. The LSUC has instituted a significant number of changes—possibly the most significant changes in the last half century—in a very short period of time (without, in our view, an adequate evidentiary basis, sufficient reflection, or consultation with the law schools). The possibility of other changes, including the abolition of articling and the changing nature of the job market for our graduates, also highlights the importance of having as full information as possible prior to any decision.

Osgoode is particularly concerned about the lack of information from the LSUC about what kind of reporting and monitoring regime would be required of any law school offering an “integrated practice curriculum.” The potential of increased monitoring, oversight, reporting and regulation by the LSUC raises critical issues of academic independence and integrity.

3. Cost Consequences

For Osgoode, there are potential costs to modifying our program in response to these recent and still unfolding developments. There are costs to the vision of the JD education and the program we have built (including the very direct impact on our current clinical offerings). There are costs in terms of staff, planning and expenses. For students, there are costs in terms of fees and time invested in new programs with uncertain returns, but also the cost of opportunities for broader legal education foregone. Nonetheless, Osgoode must continue with its established approach to the planning of its degree programs, one that emphasizes being responsive to changing contexts and alert to the costs and benefits associated with change.

4. Responsive Planning for a Dynamic Profession

Although we conclude at this time that the case to immediately modify our JD program is not convincing, Osgoode must approach our future plans with attention to the full scope of our context and with a full understanding of the implications for our students, legal education, and the profession. 

One way to understand the task is to deepen the concept of “practice readiness” beyond its use for the short-term task of licensing. The Osgoode JD aims to prepare students for a multiplicity of professional roles in a wide array of practice contexts by fostering analytical, communication, ethical and professional skills that will be valuable throughout careers that will see significant dynamic change.  In addition to the changes in the “Pathways” to licensing, it is clear that major shifts are underway in the profession and the market for legal services.  As such, there is little doubt that the occasion is upon us to think deeply about the future of legal education in light of such change.

To ensure that the Osgoode JD continues to ready its graduates for excellence throughout their careers, some essential tasks for Osgoode to address now include to:

                     Identify the most important social challenges and opportunities relevant to the design of our JD program, such as regulatory changes, shifts in job markets for JD graduates, changes in the structure of law firms including mergers and failures, retrenchment and expansion in US and other foreign law schools, and increased presence of foreign-trained law graduates in local markets;

                     Review and reflect on our curriculum reform efforts to re-articulate the essential values advanced by the Osgoode JD;

                     Develop a clear articulation of what is meant by “experiential learning” at Osgoode and how Osgoode’s approach relates to the LSUC’s regulatory competencies;

                     Continue Osgoode’s leadership in innovative lifelong professional education and reflect on the benefits and costs associated with new developments such as technology-enhanced learning, new approaches to pedagogy and best practices in professional training, and the comparative experience of professional training in other fields and in other jurisdictions; and

                     Connect to other law schools in Ontario and outside the jurisdiction regarding shared visions about the future of legal education and the legal profession.

By reflecting carefully in these ways on the convergence of so many major developments in our legal landscape, we will continue, in collaboration with our students and alumni, to build on Osgoode’s longstanding tradition of leadership as a public institution that offers responsive and reflective legal education.

Catching Up….Women & The Legal Profession's Pipeline to Power Symposium

Twitter is a tricky thing.  I just love it, but I think that’s because I’m lazy.  I mean, who really follows twitter anyway?  No, lots of people do, but many don’t and I suspect won’t.   Although of course if you follow the IFLS through FB you get the posts AND the tweets.  And some things from twitter don’t need more attention, for instance:


The problem is that I end up putting some really amazing things I see out through twitter, which is less than they deserve.
So I’m going to try to do a better job of getting the issues from Twitter out through the blog.  To start:

Women & The Legal Profession’s Pipeline to Power Symposium

The ceiling may be shattered, but the pipeline to power remains elusive for most women. This symposium serves as a catalyst to raise awareness about, discuss the dynamics of, and strategize solutions to the persistent gender disparity that exists in positions of power within the legal profession. Scholars and experts from the fields of law, gender studies, political science, journalism, and beyond will reframe and advance the course of existing dialogue on gender equality.

This symposium was held at Michigan State University College of Law and set up by the  co-chairs of the Kelley Institute of Ethics and the Legal Profession Professor Renee Knake and Lecturer-in-Law Hannah Brenner.  Bridget Crawford, of Pace Law and many blogs especially Feminist Law Professors, did a great job of rounding up the conference. She even pulled all her posts together in one place, here, so you can read them all.  One of the most interesting things is here (in which Prof. Crawford talks to some students who were attending and ended up wondering, “Were we at the same symposium?”).

The live-blogging, tweeting and rounding up wasn’t just something ad hoc.  The conference organizers and Prof. Crawford collaborated on it, as a method of expanding the reach of the materials and speakers.  The conference web page notes “For those unable to attend the symposium, Bridget Crawford, Professor of Law at Pace School of Law will live-blog with posts appearing at the Faculty LoungeFeminist Law Professors, and the Legal Ethics Forum.” Something to think about next time you’re organizing – is it worth putting out some of the content on social media? How? What? and who should do it?

The Symposium content will be published in a forthcoming issue of the Michigan State Law Review and I will try to make sure that I note the release of the volume.

Alaska oil pipeline snakes across tundra

CFP: Gender and the legal profession's pipeline to power (Deadline November 15; Conference April 12, 13 2012)

The glass ceiling may be shattered but the legal profession’s pipeline to power remains elusive for most women. What can be done?

 

Click here for Confer ence Website

This conference hosted by Michigan State College of Law looks interesting and timely. They are inviting proposals from:

individuals across disciplines who are interested in contributing to this conversation by speaking on a panel at the symposium. We especially encourage proposals from junior scholars and new voices who are focusing their work on the issues that will be explored through this event. Submissions must include a title and abstract of no more than 1,000 words, due by November 15, 2011. Please include your full contact information, including an email, phone number, and mailing address. Participants will be notified about their acceptance in December 2011. Some participants may have the opportunity to publish their paper as part of a special symposium issue of the MSU Law Review (please indicate if you are interested in having your paper considered for this purpose in your submission).

http://www.law.msu.edu/pipeline/

b.150.0.16777215.0.stories.01-CANADIANLawyer.2010.August.cl_august_cover

Canadian Lawyer Mag lists the top 25 most influential lawyers: department of predictability

So, Canadian Lawyer has provided law geeks across the country with something to argue about.  Anything to increase readership, right? On that front, at least, we agree.

Here’s my take (there are also regional takes, of course, including a sharply worded critique from a Quebec lawyer who was on the judging panel): The list includes 4 women (the Chief Justice, at the top of the list, Justice Abella, Sheila Block and Marlys Edwardh), one person of colour (Julian Falconer), as far as my knowledge goes, and (again, as far as I know) no Indigenous lawyers.  lawyers with disabilities. (i skipped a page, it seems, and as a lawyer i have trouble with counting). However, David Lepofsky, who is blind and works ceaselessly as an advocate for people with disabilities, is included.

Click the picture to see the article, or click here. The panel that chose the list is noted on the last page.

Why don’t we open up the comments on this one – any thoughts?

  • On the one hand, given the Ornstein report, is this just an accurate description of a profession in which racialized lawyers and women are usually relegated to positions which lack influence, not to mention high pay?
  • What about the methodology of measuring influence (something I’m struggling with in thinking about teaching/mentoring) – what counts? I’ve included the criteria below. In making their list, Canadian Lawyer said it was about both power and influence. What about innovative and inspirational practitioners?
  • What is the meaning of lists like these in constructing the profession? Do lists like these make an already closed profession more so? Or is the list just a meaningless marketing device?
  • What about an alternative list? Who would you nominate? Leaving academics out of it (i’m making a safe assumption about readership here), can we put together a list of people who could/will/should be the most influential in 10 years?

In general, we thought we’d avoid opening comments on this blog, for reasons that perhaps I’ll blog about later this week.  But let’s try one baby step here. If you can correct any of my errors, please do.  Otherwise, let’s think about metrics and alternatives. Maybe we can do a monthly feature on people who SHOULD be influential, but won’t make it past most of CL’s criteria:

Who are behind cutting-edge advocacy and getting the ear of government? The judiciary obviously wields power but who hold positions that really have an impact? It’s about respect, ability to influence public opinion, and help shape the laws of this country; contribution to the strength and quality of legal services; and social and political influence and involvement. It can include politicians and regulators, but only if they are lawyers and are still in the legal field. (from Canadian Lawyer Magazine)

Ornsteinreportcov.jpg

Documenting the Race and Gender Pay Gap in the Ontario Legal Profession

This Law Society of Upper Canada report is based on the 2006 Census, including the 6400 lawyers who filled out the Long Form Census. Click here for the full report..  Ornstein (based at York University’s Institute for Social Research) documents the gender gap in earnings and the “much larger” difference between the earnings of racialized lawyers and White lawyers.  And apparently the gender gap in earnings isn’t decreasing anymore. There’s much more in the report.   Continue reading