2nd Annual African Law Deans’ Forum...4 Agenda 2013 African Regional Deans’ Forum Law School Leadership in the 21st Century: Meeting the Global Challenge University of Nigeria

1

2nd Annual African Law Deans’ Forum

Law School Leadership in the 21st Century:

Meeting the Global Challenge

June 10th & 11th, 2013

University of Nigeria Enugu, Nigeria

2

Table of Contents

Agenda 4 Small Group Discussions 7

Participants (pictures & biographies) 10

Forum Outline 23 Statement of Outcomes of a Legal Education 25

Outline of Inputs of a Legal Education 27 2012 Law Deans’ Survey _____ 30

Economics of a Legal Education __ ____________________________ 33 July 2010 ABA Report _______ _ _____________________________ 37

May 2012 ABA Report ______________________________________ 45 2012 African Law Deans’ Concept Note ____ ____________________ 60

2013 European Deans’ Forum Minutes 64 2013 Asia-Pacific Deans’ Forum Minutes ________________________77

3




Agenda

4

Agenda

2013 African Regional Deans’ Forum Law School Leadership in the 21st Century:


University of Nigeria

Enugu, Nigeria

June 10th & 11th, 2013

Arrivals For participants arriving at Abuja or Lagos prior to taking a local flight

to Enugu, the University of Nigeria staff has graciously offered to meet

the participants at the airport and accompany them to either a

connecting flight or to a hotel (if the connecting flight is on the

following day) for a maximum of one night’s stay, fully covered.

Sunday 9th June

Nike Lake Hotel

Nike Lake Road, Abakpa, Nike, Enugu State, Nigeria

19:00 Welcome Dinner hosted by University of Nigeria

Remarks by: DVC, University of Nigeria, Enugu

Monday 10th June

08:00 Breakfast – Nike Lake Hotel

09:00 – 10:30 Welcome/Opening Session/Group Photograph

Moderator: Dr. Tahir Mamman, Director-General, Nigerian Law School

Speakers:

Prof. Prof. Bartho N. Okolo, Vice Chancellor, University of Nigeria

Prof. Ifeoma P. Enemo, Dean, University of Nigeria, Faculty of Law

Prof. Francis S.L. Wang, President, IALS

Prof. Fidelis Oditah QC, SAN

10:30 – 10:45 Break

10:45 – 11:30 Session 1: Who are we? Who do we teach? For What?

Moderator: Prof. Francis S.L. Wang, Dean (Emeritus), Kenneth Wang

School of Law, Soochow University

11:30 – 12:30 Small Group Discussions 1

12:30 – 13:30 Lunch

5

13:30 – 14:15 Session 2: Current Issues – Africa

Moderator: Prof. Joy Ezeilo, University of Nigeria, Faculty of Law


15:15 – 15:30 Break

15:30 – 16:15 Session 3: Current Issues – United States

Moderator: Prof. Barbara Holden-Smith, Vice Dean, Cornell University

Law School


17:15 – 17:45 Wrap up Discussions

19:00 Dinner hosted by the University of Nigeria – Nike Lake Hotel

Remarks by: Justice Babatunde Adejumo, OFR (President National

Industrial Court)

Tuesday 11th June


09:00 – 09:45 Session 4: Statement of Outcomes of a Legal Education


10:45 – 11:00 Break

11:00 – 12:00 Session 5: Standards Project

12:00 – 13:00 Lunch


14:00 – 14:15 Break

14:15 – 15:30 Wrap Up Discussions

19:00 Dinner hosted by the Wang Family Foundation – Golden Royale Hotel

Wednesday 12th June


10:00 Cultural guided tour (optional)

Departures

6

2nd Annual

African Law Deans’ Forum



Small Group Discussions

7

Small Group Discussions

2013 African Regional Deans’ Forum Law School Leadership in the 21st Century:


Session 1

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5

Francis

Wang

Kofi

Quashigah

Elizabeth

Gachenga

David

Jallah

Daniel

Odeleye

Joy

Ezeilo

Tahir

Mamman

M.O.

Adediran

Oluyemisi

Bamgbose

Abdulmumini

Ahmed

Ifedayo

Akomolede

Gabriel

Agu

Abdulqadir

Abikan

OVC

Okene

Enefiok

Essien

Patrick

Ugochukwu

Idowu

Adegbite

George

Nnona

Uba

Nnabue

Ifeoma

Enemo

Joash

Amupitan

Y.Y.

Bambale

Obiajulu

Nnamuchi

Sonia

Human

Pamela

Kalyegira

Sarah

Mugalu

Barbara Holden-

Smith

Emmanuel

Magade

Session 2


Joy

Ezeilo

Francis

Wang

Ifedayo

Akomolede

Patrick

Ugochukwu

Joash

Amupitan

Kofi

Quashigah

Tahir

Mamman

Idowu

Adegbite

Y.Y.

Bambale

Gabriel

Agu

Elizabeth

Gachenga

M.O.

Adediran

Abdulqadir

Abikan

George

Nnona

Barbara

Holden-Smith

David

Jallah

Oluyemisi

Bamgbose

Emmanuel

Magade

Sonia

Human

Obiajulu

Nnamuchi

OVC

Okene

Abdulmumini

Ahmed

Sarah

Mugalu

Pamela

Kalyegira

Enefiok Essien

Daniel

Odeleye

Uba

Nnabue

Ifeoma

Enemo

8

Session 3


Elizabeth

Gachenga

Joy

Ezeilo

Kofi

Quashigah

OVC

Okene

Oluyemisi

Bamgbose

Abdulmumini

Ahmed

Daniel

Odeleye

David

Jallah

Sarah

Mugalu

Ifedayo

Akomolede

Abdulqadir

Abikan

M.O.

Adediran

Francis

Wang

Tahir

Mamman

Ifeoma

Enemo

Sonia

Human

Idowu

Adegbite

Uba

Nnabue

Emmanuel

Magade

George

Nnona

Gabriel

Agu

Patrick

Ugochukwu

Y.Y.

Bambale

Obiajulu

Nnamuchi

Pamela

Kalyegira

Enefiok

Essien

Joash

Amupitan

Barbara

Holden-Smith

Session 4


Tahir

Mamman

David

Jallah

Y.Y.

Bambale

Sonia

Human

George

Nnona

Enefiok

Essien

Barbara

Holden-Smith

Joy

Ezeilo

Francis

Wang

Abdulmumini

Ahmed

Kofi

Quashigah

Oluyemisi

Bamgbose

Pamela

Kalyegira

Emmanuel

Magade

OVC

Okene

Obiajulu

Nnamuchi

Patrick

Ugochukwu

Joash

Amupitan

Elizabeth

Gachenga

Gabriel

Agu

Uba

Nnabue

Abdulqadir

Abikan

M.O.

Adediran

Idowu

Adegbite

Daniel

Odeleye

Ifedayo

Akomolede

Sarah

Mugalu

Ifeoma

Enemo

Session 5


Abdulqadir

Abikan

Joash

Amupitan

Kofi

Quashigah

Elizabeth

Gachenga

Francis

Wang

Joy

Ezeilo

Gabriel

Agu

Abdulmumini

Ahmed

Daniel

Odeleye

Enefiok

Essien

Y.Y.

Bambale

David

Jallah

Idowu

Adegbite

Patrick

Ugochukwu

M.O.

Adediran

Obiajulu

Nnamuchi

OVC

Okene

Uba

Nnabue

Oluyemisi

Bamgbose

Tahir

Mamman

Pamela

Kalyegira

Sonia

Human

Ifeoma

Enemo

George

Nnona

Ifedayo

Akomolede

Emmanuel

Magade

Barbara

Holden-Smith

Sarah

Mugalu

9




Participants

10

Participant Biographies

Abdulqadir Ibrahim Abikan

Dean

University of Ilorin

Nigeria

[email protected]

Dr. Abdulqadir Ibrahim Abikan is a legal practitioner, barrister and

solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, with teaching, research and

consulting experience in the areas of law of corporate management,

Islamic banking and finance, Islamic commercial transactions,

business law, Islamic business ethics and Islamic investments. He

earned his Ph. D in Islamic Banking and Finance Laws from

International Islamic University Malaysia. He has taught in all educational strata, from primary

school through college to university in Nigeria and abroad. He has to his credit twenty (20)

articles in local, national and international refereed journals and books. He is currently a Senior

Lecturer and the Ag. Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Ilorin, Nigeria. He also occupies,

at present, the positions of the President, Nigerian Association of Law Teachers and Vice

Chairman, Nigerian Bar Association, Ilorin Branch, Nigeria.

M.O. Adediran

Dean

Obafemi Awolowo University

Nigeria

[email protected]

Prof M.O. Adediran is a lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Obafemi

Awolowo University, Ile-Ife. He joined academics as a graduate

assistant in 1977 and rose through the ranks to become a professor

in 1995. He has traveled wide in Nigeria to nearly all the Faculties

of Law for accreditation on behalf of the National Universities

Commission and the Council of Legal Education.

His main academic areas are in Constitutional Law, Administrative

Law, Comparative Constitutional Law, Principles of Civil Litigation,

Family Law and Local Government Studies. He was the Acting Dean of Law between 1993

and 1995 and Dean of Law between 2000 and 2004. He has assisted in the modelling and

establishment of some Faculties of Law in Nigeria. He was the Chairman of the NUC

Committees for the Benchmark Academic Programmes in Undergraduate and Postgraduate

studies.

He has a lot of experience in University administration. While on sabbatical and leave of

absence in Benson Idahosa University, he was the Dean of Law, Acting Vice- Chancellor and

Deputy Vice-Chancellor. For some few years, he will continue to serve in the Faculty.

mailto:[email protected]


11

Idowu Adegbite

Dean

Olabisi Onabanjo University Ago-Iwoye

Nigeria

[email protected]

ADEGBITE, Idowu is an Associate Professor of Law, Faculty of Law,

Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago –Iwoye, Ogun State, Nigeria. He

became the Acting Dean of that Faculty in year 2009. He holds an

LL.B degree of the Olabisi Onabanjo University (1988); he was

called to the Nigerian Bar as a Solicitor and Advocate of the

Supreme Court of Nigeria in 1989; he served the nation under the

mandatory National Youth Service Corps programme between 1989 and 1990 in Ibadan,

Oyo State, Nigeria. He bagged the Master of Laws degree (LL.M) of the Obafemi Awolowo

University, Ile – Ife, Osun State, Nigeria in 1991.

In 1991 he had joined the services of the Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago –Iwoye as an

academic staff and had remained there till date. His areas of academic interest cuts across

Oil and Gas Law; Law of Torts and Human Rights Law. Mr. Adegbite is a member of the

Ogun State Bar & Bench Forum Planning Committee; he is the Chairman of the Ogun State

Bar & Bench Journal Committee; an active member of the Nigerian Bar Association and of

several other bodies and Committees both within and outside the University community.

Agu Gabriel Agu

Dean

Enugu State University of Science and Technology

Nigeria

[email protected]

Abdulmumini Ahmed

Dean

Bayero University

Nigeria

[email protected]

Dr. Ahmed is the current Dean of the Faculty of Law at Bayero

University at Kano, Nigeria. He has earned the degrees of LLB, BL,

LLM, PGDM, and Ph.D. He has taught courses in Taxation and Tax

Administration in Nigeria, Labour Law, Criminal Law, Company Law,

Banking Law, and Comparative Company Law. His research

interest is in the field of Revenue Law. He has published numerous

books since 2005.




12

Ifedayo Akomolede

Dean

Ekiti State University

Nigeria

[email protected]

Professor Ifedayo Akomolede studied at the University of Benin for

his LL.B. and graduated in 1987. He proceeded to the Nigerian Law

School in 1987 for his professional training which he completed in

1988. His quest for postgraduate education made him to enroll for

the LL.M. programme in 1990. He also has an MBA from OAU, and

an MPA (Master of Public Administration) at the University of Lagos. He went back to OAU

where he enrolled for the M.Phil. Degree in Law and followed it with the Ph.D. programme in

Law.

He joined the Nigerian Law School in 2001 as a Lecturer I. While at the Law School, he

taught Legal Drafting and Conveyance and Company Law and Practice. His lecturing career

has taken him to such institutions as Igbinedion University, Okada and Olabisi Onabanjo

University, Ago-Iwoye where he served as a Senior Lecturer and Acting Head of Department

and Coordination of the Post-graduate Programmes at different times.

He came back home and joined the University of Ado Ekiti (now Ekiti State University) as a

Reader (Associate Professor) in Law in January 2009. Later that year he was appointed the

Acting Dean of the Faculty of Law, a position which he holds up till now.

Joash Amupitan

Dean

University of Jos

Nigeria

[email protected]

Joash Amupitan is a Professor of Law and the Dean, Faculty of Law,

University of Jos, Jos Nigeria.

He holds a Ph.D. degree in Law from the University of Jos in the year

2007, having earlier obtained his Masters of Law (LL.M) in 1993 from

the same University. He obtained his LL.B (Hons) also from the

University of Jos in 1987 where he emerged as the best graduating student and was called

to the Nigerian Bar on 3rd November, 1988. He joined the Faculty of Law, University of Jos

in 1989 as Assistant Lecturer and rose to the rank of Professor in 2008.

He was a Visiting Scholar under the Fulbright programme to the University of Iowa, United

States in 2004. He served as a member of the Governing Council of University of Jos

between 2009 and 2013. He is a member of the Governing Council of Nigerian Institute of

Advanced Legal Studies and also member of the Council of Legal Education. He also served

as a member of the Academic Board of Nettel@Africa.

He has attended several local and international conferences including IALS Conference on

Constitutional Law, Washington DC, 2009, UN 6th Session on Minority Rights, Geneva,

2012, 51st Ordinary Session of African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Banjul,



13

Gambia, 2012. He has to his credit several articles in learned journals and authored several

books on Law of Evidence and Corporate Governance law.

Yahaya Yunusa Bambale

Dean

Ahmadu Bello University

Nigeria

[email protected]

Professor Y.Y. Bambale was born in 1962 in Zaria City, Kaduna

State. Presently, he is the Dean, Faculty of Law, Ahmadu Bello

University, Zaria, Nigeria. He did his LL.B., LL.M and Ph.D. (Law)

from A.B.U., Zaria. He was called to Nigerian Bar in 1986. He

started his teaching career as an Assistant Lecturer in 1988 in the

Faculty of Law, A.B.U. Zaria and rose through the ranks to become Professor of Law in the

year 2008. He taught many courses ranging from Criminal/Civil Procedure, Medical

Jurisprudence, Islamic Criminal Law, Islamic Law of Torts, Introduction to Islamic Law etc.

but specializes in Comparative Criminal Law and Islamic Jurisprudence. He has supervised

over 30 Ph.D. and LL.M students. He held many university positions including Dean of

Students, Deputy Dean of Students, Assistant Dean (Undergraduate Studies) Assistant Dean

(Postgraduate Studies), Chairman Junior Staff Disciplinary Committee, Member of the

University Senate. Also, Member of Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Member of Nigerian

Association of Law Teachers (NALT), Member of Nigerian Association of Islamic Law

Teachers (NAILT). Editor-in-Chief of the Faculty based journal (ABU Law Journal) etc. He

has over 30 published articles in peer review journals, and five published referenced books

namely:- (1) ‘Crimes and Punishments under Islamic Law’; (2) ‘Islamic Law of Commercial

and Industrial Transactions’; (3) ‘Acquisition and Transfer of Property in Islamic Law’; (4)

‘An Outline of Islamic Jurisprudence’; (5) ‘Acquisition and Transfer of Property in Islamic

Law’. He is happily married with children.

Oluyemisi Bamgbose

Dean

University of Ibadan

Nigeria

[email protected]

Currently teaches Criminal Law, Criminology, Law of Evidence and

Comparative Criminal Law and Procedure.

She was Visiting Professor at Marquette University School of Law in

Fall Semester 2001 where she taught Comparative Criminal Law and

Procedure and at Saint Louis University School of Law, Saint Louis,

Missouri in the Spring Semester 2008 where she taught Juvenile

Justice Administration in Nigeria.

She is a Fellow of Salzburg Seminar Austria Session 339 (1996),

served as Chairperson of The Study Group on the Death Penalty for the Government of the

Federal Republic of Nigeria, and was a Member of Nigeria’s National Committee on the

Reform of Discriminatory Laws against Women.

Professor Bamgbose is a member of The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), The Nigerian

Association of Law Teachers (NALT), West African Research Association (WARA), West

African Research and Innovation Management Association (WARIMA) and the International



14

Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA). She has adopted an interdisciplinary and

comparative approach to her research. She teaches Legal Issues in Disaster Risk

Management in the Department of Geography and Legal Criminology and Security

Psychology in the Department of Psychology in the University of Ibadan.

Professor Bamgbose has a strong interest in women and children issues and has published

over 70 (seventy) articles, books and technical reports in English language and translation

into other languages in both national and international outlets. She delivered her inaugural

lecture in July 2010 titled “The Sentence, the Sentencer and the Sentenced: Towards Prison

Reforms in Nigeria”. She received both her Bachelor of Laws (with honors) and her Master of

Laws from the University of Lagos in Nigeria. She is currently the Dean of Law and Director

of the Women’s Law Clinic (a specialized law clinic), at the Faculty of Law, University of

Ibadan.

Ifeoma Enemo

Dean

University of Nigeria, Enugu

Nigeria

[email protected]

Prof. Ifeoma Pamela Enemo holds a Bachelor of Laws Degree of the

University of Nigeria. She studied for and obtained her Master of

Laws Degree from the University of Lagos. Thereafter she obtained

her Doctorate Degree from the University of Nigeria where she was

awarded the prize of the Best Graduating Postgraduate of the

Faculty of Law for the 1995/96 academic session.

Ifeoma Pamela Enemo though wrote her Doctorate Degree on International Law has found

affinity with feminist issues and has written extensively in the area. She has authored two

books namely: The Law of Tort, and Basic Principles of Family Law in Nigeria.

Ifeoma Pamela Enemo teaches Family Law, The Law of Tort and International Law at the

undergraduate level, and The Law of International Institutions at the postgraduate level.

She is the Executive Director of a non-governmental organization “Conflict Resolution and

Advocacy Centre” in Enugu; a mediating and peace building centre for families in both rural

and urban areas. Thus, apart from her rich experience in teaching, she has also devoted

herself to numerous social services.

She served as the Head of Department of International Law and Jurisprudence from 1997 to

2005; the Associate Dean of the Faculty, from 2005 -2007, and the immediate past /first

female Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus. She is the Deputy

Vice-Chancellor of the University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus, and the Supervising Dean,

Faculty of Law.

Enefiok Essien

Dean

University of Uyo

Nigeria

[email protected]



15

Joy Ngozi Ezeilo

Professor


Nigeria

[email protected]

Joy Ngozi Ezeilo, Ph.D. (Nig.), LLM (London), LL.B. (Nig.), BL,

Diploma, Peace & Conflict Res (Uppsala). Dr. Ezeilo is an activist and

versatile legal scholar recognized as a leading authority in the field of

human rights, especially on the rights of women and children. She

teaches Law at the Department of Public and Private Law, Faculty of

Law, University of Nigeria and pioneered, since 1997, the teaching

of the Course, “Women, Children and the Law” making her Faculty

and University the first to do so. She was appointed in 2008 as the

United Nations Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons, especially women and children,

and currently serves in that capacity globally. She is also the founding director of WomenAid

Collective (WACOL), a national organization that promotes human rights of women and

young people.

Joy Ezeilo is a recipient of the prestigious British Chevening scholarship (1995) and a

grantee of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’s Funds for Leadership

Development (1998). She has also received several national and international awards,

including being conferred with the national honour of Officer of the Order of Niger (OON) in

2006 by the then President Olusegun Obasanjo (GCFR) in recognition of her outstanding

contributions in the area of nation building, legal scholarship, advocacy, civil society

movement and community service. Dr. Ezeilo is a visiting professor to several universities,

especially in North America and a regent Professor, University of California, Riverside. As a

legal practitioner, barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, she takes on

human rights cases on a pro bono basis, representing poor and vulnerable women and

young people. She has delivered public lectures around the world on human rights, human

trafficking, gender, peace, democracy and good governance, and has published extensively

in similar areas of law.

In April, 2013 she was recognized by Newsweek/Daily Beast International Magazine, USA as

one of the 125 women of impact in the world for her work, especially in combating human

trafficking--a modern day slavery.

Elizabeth Gachenga

Director of Research

Strathmore Law School

Kenya

[email protected]

Dr. Gachenga is a law lecturer and Director of Research at the

Strathmore Law School. She is also the Co-ordinator of the

Environmental Law and Technology Research Group. She has

more than seven years’ experience in teaching and research in

the areas of business and corporate law, ethics and

environmental law. Her research interests include various aspects

of environmental law including biosafety, water and sanitation,

customary governance of natural resources and climate change as well as legal ethics and



16

corporate law. Gachenga has worked as Faculty Manager of Strathmore’s School of

Humanities and Social Sciences and in other administrative positions in the University.

Sonia Human

Dean

University of Stellenbosch

South Africa

[email protected]

Prof Human is Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of

Stellenbosch. She graduated from this Faculty with a LLD on

children’s rights. Prof Human has published on the topic in a

number of law journals and she is also the co-author of two

textbooks on Family and two textbooks on the Law of Persons.

She has received eight awards as a lecturer.

David Jallah

Dean

University of Liberia

Liberia

[email protected]

David A. B. Jallah, born in Owensgrove, Grand Bassa County,

Republic of Liberia, on March 25, 1951, is Dean and Full Professor

of Law, Louis Arthur Grimes School of Law, University of Liberia,

Monrovia, Liberia. He is also General Counsel, Legal Advisor to the

University President and a member of his Cabinet.

He joined the Law Faculty in 1984 and became Dean in 2000.

Prior to becoming Dean, he served as Assistant Professor and

Associate Professor. Dean Jallah is a 1975 graduate of the William

V. S. Tubman Teacher’s College, University of Liberia (BSc) and a 1978 graduate of the

Louis Arthur Grimes School of Law (L.LB), also at the University of Liberia. He holds a

Master of Laws Degree (L.LM) from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania, United States of America (1984). He is also a graduate of the Liberia Foreign

Service Institute (1975); a graduate of the International Law Development Institute (Now

International Law Development Organization (1986), Rome, Italy.

He was Deputy Commissioner of Immigration & Naturalization, Ministry of Justice, Republic

of Liberia (1979-1980). He has been engaged in the private practice of law since 1981, first

with the Cooper & Togbah Law Firm as an Associate and then with The David A. B. Jallah

Law Firm which he established in 1988 where he still serves as a Senior Consultant. He once

served as Chairman of the City Council of Monrovia for several years after 2006. He was

appointed Chairman of the Forestry Development Authority Reform Committee in 2004 by

Interim Chairman of the Liberian Government, Charles Gyude Bryant. President Ellen

Johnson-Sirleaf appointed him Chairman of the Liberian Constitutional Reform Task Force



17

with the responsibility of making recommendations for Constitutional changes. He is a

Member of the Board of Trustees of the Grand Bassa County Community College located in

Buchanan City, Grand Bassa County, Liberia.

Pamela Tibihikirra-Kalyegira

Dean

Uganda Christian University

Uganda

[email protected]

Pamela Tibihikirra-Kalyegira was born in Kampala, Uganda. She

received a Bachelor of Laws from Makerere University in 1995 and

a Diploma in Legal Practice from the Law Development Centre,

Kampala, Uganda in 1996. During 1997 she served internships

with The United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland at the Centre for

Human Rights and the Division of International Protection of the

High Commissioner for Refugees. She earned a Master of Laws in Public International Law

from the London School of Economics in 1998 and was enrolled as an advocate of the High

Court of Uganda in 1999. She practiced commercial law in Uganda and worked in the field of

public international law with various organizations in West Africa and South Africa.

Pamela embarked on an academic career after the birth of her first two sons. She taught at

Uganda Christian University for three years before she received a Fulbright scholarship to

undertake doctoral study at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, Bloomington,

Indiana, U.S.A.

Pamela has been serving as Dean, Faculty of Law, Uganda Christian University since

September 2009. She was appointed a Member of the Law Development Centre

Management Committee by the Attorney General / Minister of Justice & Constitutional

Affairs in April 2010. Her current research interests are centered on legal education reform

in East Africa, the subject of her doctoral thesis.

Emmanuel Magade

Dean

University of Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe

[email protected]

Tahir Mamman

Director General

Nigerian Law School

Nigeria

[email protected]

Dr. Tahir Mamman is currently the Director General, Nigerian Law

School since December 2005. The institution is responsible for

the professional training of all persons desirous of becoming a

member of the Nigerian Bar. He is also the Chief Operations

Officer of the Council of Legal Education, a body which oversees




18

the Nigerian Law School and partly the LL.B programme in the Universities in Nigeria.

Before he joined the Nigerian Law School, he was at a time acting Dean of Law in the

University of Maiduguri; substantive Dean, Students Affairs of the University; Head,

Department of Common Law. He was a Nutfield Foundation Fellow at the Institute of

Advanced Legal Studies, London, UK.

His main area of academic interest is Constitutional Law, particularly Affairs and Professional

Ethics. He holds a number of titles in his community: (Dan Ruwata, Adamawa, Dokaji Mubi)

and a National Honor Officer of Order of the Niger (OON).

Sarah Banenya Mugalu

Dean

Kampala International University

Uganda

[email protected]

Born in Uganda on the 30th day of October, 1962 is the Dean,

School of Law Kampala International University in Kampala-

Uganda since January 2012 – to date. Acting Dean of the same

School, then Faculty between 2007 and 2010.

Sarah is a holder of an LL.M. in International Legal Studies from

the American University, Washington College of Law, Washington,

D.C; an LL.B. (Honors – Upper Second) from Makerere University,

Kampala-Uganda; a Diploma in Legal Practice (Bar Course) from the Law Development

Centre, Kampala-Uganda; and a Diploma in Legislative Drafting from. International Law

Institute and Development Associates, Inc., Kampala. Worked as Lecturer at the Law

Development Centre, Kampala Uganda, 2001 - 2011. Executive Director of Uganda

Association of Women Lawyers – FIDA (U) March 1999 – Feb. 2001. Senior State Attorney

in the Attorney General’s Chambers, 1991 -1999.

Consultancies:

Development of “The Prohibition of Genital Mutilation Regulations, 2010” Dec., 2010

Consultant: Development of Manual on Social Security Legislation, 2010” June, 2010.

A review of national legislation relating to social security, identifying the gaps therein; a

review of the international instruments provisions on social security, analyzing their

incorporation into domestic laws.

Development of Manual on Labour Administration in Uganda and Access to Justice June,

2009. A review of all labor related laws with a bearing to workers’ rights to access justice.

Development of National Council For Disability Regulations July, 2008. Work involved

review of National Council of Disability Act, the role of National Council and lower councils

for Disability.


19

Uba Sonny Frank Nnabue

Dean

Imo State University

Nigeria

[email protected]

Prof. Nnabue is the Dean of Law at the Imo State University,

Owerri, Nigeria. He has been teaching law for 26 years and

supervises 25 LL.M. and 10 Ph.D. students. He has a Ph.D. in

Law and holds certifications as a Barrister-at-Law and a Solicitor

of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. He has published five mainline

books and over 50 journal articles. His academic interest is in

International Development Law. Aside from being the Dean, he is

also an external examiner for LL.M. and Ph.D. for many

universities in Nigeria. He is also an assessor for promotion to

the rank of Associate Professors and Professors for other universities in the area.

Obiajulu Nnamuchi

Professor


Nigeria

Dr. Obiajulu Nnamuchi, LL.B. (Awka), LL.M.(Notre Dame),

LL.M.(Toronto), LL.M.(Lund), M.A.(Louisville), S.J.D (Loyola,

Chicago) wears several professional hats. Initially a human rights

scholar, Dr. Nnamuchi has, over the years, broadened his

expertise to include bioethics, moral philosophy and, health law

and policy. During his doctoral program, Dr. Nnamuchi was

awarded graduate fellowship to study bioethics and medical

humanities and, in the process, gained valuable experience in the

formation, organizational structure and operational dynamics of

hospital ethics committees (HECs) and institutional review boards

(IRBs). A formally-trained ethicist, he teaches clinical and research ethics to students as

well as health professionals throughout the world. Prior to joining the Faculty of Law,

University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus (UNEC), Dr. Nnamuchi was a researcher at the Beazley

Institute for Health Law and Policy, an affiliate of Loyola University Chicago Law School.

Dr. Nnamuchi’s scholarship focuses mainly on the intersection of health and human rights;

health governance and financing; the interface between human rights and culture; law and

ethics of medical practice; gender and minority issues; critical legal theory; and,

development issues, especially as they relate to health and delivery of health care – areas

on which he has written extensively. Together with Brigit Toebes (author of the leading

textbook, The Right to Health as a Human Right in International Law), Dr. Nnamuchi is a co-

editor of a forthcoming book, The Right to Health: A Multi-Country Study of Law, Policy and

Practice (T.M.C. Asser Press, 2013).

George Nnona

Professor


Nigeria

[email protected]



20

Daniel Odeyemi Odeleye

Dean

University of Abuja

Nigeria

[email protected]

Prof. Odeleye attained the degrees of B.L., LL.B., LL.M., and Ph.D.

He has worked at the Oyo State Ministry of Agriculture, Legal Aid

Council in Ilorin, Kwara State, Oyo State Ministry of Justice, and as

a Law lecturer at the University of Abuja. He has taught courses

in Legal Methods, Administrative Law, Criminal Law, Industrial

Law, Equity and Trusts, and the Law of Taxation. Currently he

teaches Nigerian Constitutional Law and Comparative

Constitutional Law. He has also published numerous journal articles and book chapters.

O.V.C. Okene

Dean

Rivers State University of Science and Technology

Nigeria

[email protected]

Kofi Quashigah

Dean

University of Ghana

Ghana

[email protected]

Prof. Kofi Quashigah is the Dean of the Faculty University of Ghana.

Before joining the Faculty of the University of Ghana he had taught

at the University of Nigeria Enugu Campus where he obtained his

LL.M and Ph.D. Degrees. He was a Fulbright Scholar at the Harvard

Human Rights Program between 2001/2002 and a McArthur

Foundation Visiting Scholar at the University of Wisconsin, USA in

1992. His teaching and research interests include Constitutional

Law, Human Rights, International Humanitarian Law, Jurisprudence, Governance, Elections

Law and Alternative Dispute Resolution.

He is a member of the General Legal Council of Ghana and also on the Advisory Board of the

Ministry of Justice. For several years he has been the President of the Ghana Association of

Certified Mediators and Arbitrators. He was adjudged and honoured as the 2005 Best

Teacher in the Humanities in the University of Ghana.

He farms as his past-time and also listens to classical music.




21

Barbara Holden-Smith

General Secretary and Treasurer

International Association of Law Schools

Vice Dean

Cornell University Law School

United States

[email protected]

Barbara Holden-Smith, recognized for her groundbreaking work in

Supreme Court history and practice, currently teaches conflicts,

federal courts, civil procedure, advanced civil procedure, and

African Americans and the Supreme Court. After her graduation

from the University of Chicago Law School, she spent a year in an Illinois law firm and then

entered a clerkship with the Hon. Ann C. Williams of the U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois. Professor Holden-Smith then joined the Washington, D.C. law firm of

Arnold & Porter, where she worked for three years in litigation, antitrust, and food and drug

law, before she joined the Cornell Law School Faculty in 1990. Her scholarship has

addressed the legal response to lynching and the fugitive-slave cases. Her scholarly

interests include global access to justice, and legal and political responses to historical

injustices.

Patrick Ugochukwu

Dean

Abia State University

Nigeria

[email protected]

Francis S.L. Wang

President

International Association of Law Schools

Dean Emeritus

Kenneth Wang School of Law

China

[email protected]

Francis SL Wang is the Executive Director of The Wang Family

Foundation. He is one of the founding Governors and presently

serves as the President of the International Association of Law

Schools. He is one of founders and a member of the Advisory Council to the Human Rights

Resource Center, a university based research institute headquartered in Jakarta, Indonesia

with supporting centers at universities throughout the ASEAN countries. He is a member of

the Superintendent’s Advisory Board of the Napa Valley Unified School District, as well as a

member on the Board of Advisors of the C.V. Starr East Asia Library at the University of

California at Berkeley. He co-chairs the Chinese Jurisprudence Commission. Professor Wang

is the Dean Emeritus and Professor of Law at the Kenneth Wang School of Law, Soochow

University, Suzhou, China. He serves as the Honorary Chair of the Board of Regents of

Soochow University. He is a Visiting Professor of Law and Distinguished Scholar in

Residence at the University of Pacific – George School of Law. He is the co-founder and the

Senior Counsel of the War Crimes Studies Center at U.C. Berkeley. He is a Fellow of the

Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies




22




Forum Outline

23

Forum Outline

Law School Leadership in the 21st Century

Local Perspective

International Perspective

Issues brought on by globalization

How has globalization affected our responses to the following questions?

Who are we?

Who do we teach?

For What?

What does it mean to have a legal education?

Is there a commonality for all law students as to having a basic legal education?

Knowledge

Skills

Values

What are the core competencies which every law graduate should have?

These are questions which need to be addressed before we set guidelines or

standards

Specific Issues raised and to be considered in study

Faculty

Tenure

Retention

Evaluating Scholarship

Collaborative Research and Scholarship

Students

Selection

Where do they go? And is the education preparing them?

Student life issues on campus

Institutional

Relationship of law school or department with the University

Internal governance

External governance

Professional Association

Government

Other institutions – private accrediting bodies, etc.

Alumni

Employers

Community at large

Legal Education Community

Locally

Nationally

Internationally

The Elites and the rest of us

Resources

Preservation of the status quo

24

2nd Annual




Statement of Outcomes

of a Legal Education

25

Statement of Outcomes of a Legal Education

1. Knowledge

A law graduate should know and understand:

i) the core areas of substantive and procedural law;

ii) how laws are created, implemented, and changed; and

iii) the contextual underpinnings of the operation of law (both domestically and

globally).

2. Skills

A law graduate should be proficient in:

i) general academic skills, including critical analysis and reasoning;

ii) reading and analyzing legal materials;

iii) planning, strategizing and complying with legal requirements; and

iv) effectively communicating within a legal context [orally and] in writing.

3. Values

A law graduate should understand and act in accordance with:

i) the professional ethics and values of the jurisdiction; and

ii) the fundamental principles of justice and the rule of law.

26

2nd Annual




Outline of Inputs

of a Legal Education

27

Outline of Inputs of a Legal Education

Legal Education – Database

Phase I

Establish Statement of Outcomes of a Legal Education

Define template for database of Legal Education

Overall Country Information

Number of Law Schools

o Accredited

o Unaccredited

Public or Private

Number of Students

Number of Faculty

o Full time / part time

Degrees awarded

Subject Areas for a Database of Legal Education by Jurisdiction

Regulation, Accreditation and Oversight

o Licensing of Attorneys

Exam

Apprenticeship

Law Degree

Requirements for:

Holding oneself out to give legal

advice for compensation

Representing clients before

o Court

o Administrative Agencies

o Accreditation Process

Government

Private Association

Professional Association

o Oversight Authority

Relationship with University

Relationship with Government

Relationship with Professional Association

Relationship with Accrediting Body or

Bodies

o Other Stakeholders

Alumni

Employers

Legal Education Profession

(Domestic and International)

Community (Local, National and Global)

Students

o Selection policy and standards

o Evaluations

o Degree requirements

o Student Life

o Student Employment

Faculty

o Faculty qualifications

28

o Terms of Employment

Compensation

Duration

Promotion criteria

Teaching flexibility

o Evaluation of Faculty

Scholarship

Teaching

o Retention

Curriculum

o Instruction in Core Subjects

o Instruction in Core Skills

o Instruction in Ethics and core professional values

o Teaching Methodologies

Infrastructure

o Facilities – physical and technological

Teaching environment

Access to research materials

o Administrative and support staff

Phase II

Data Collection

Analysis of Data

Defining

Similarities

Differences

Different contrasts

Undergraduate vs. Graduate

Academic vs. Professional

Developed vs. Developing

Common vs. Civil

Geographical differences

Cultural differences

Phase III

Standards Development

29




2012 Law Deans’ Survey

30

2012 Regional Law Deans’ Forum

Survey Result Summary

The IALS held its first round of Regional Law Deans’ Forums in 2012 from March through

August. All member schools were categorized into four regions – Americas, African, African,

and European. Before the forums, a survey was taken of all the member law school Deans,

62 Deans responded. The aim of the survey was to gather information as to which topics

the Deans found to be of importance to discuss amongst their colleagues.

EDUCATION

There were five categories presented, and sub-topics were rated according to how

interested each person was. The following chart shows the sub-topics that garnered most of

the “Highly Interested” votes. In addition to these, there were suggested topics such as

“Internationalizing legal learning” and “Multi-centered research output on legal research and

its impact on legislative and administrative reforms.”

4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6

Academic Breadth

Globalizing the Law School Curriculum

Advocacy (Oral and Written)

Social Justice/Human Rights

Active Learning Methods

GO

ALS

DO

CTR

INA

LIS

SUES

SKIL

LSTR

AIN

ING

ETH

ICA

LIS

SUES

PED

AG

OG

Y

EDUCATION TOPICS

31

Administrative

In coherence with the previous sub-topic of a globalized curriculum, most of the

respondents felt that there should be an administrative priority in establishing a global

reach, alongside international accreditation. The topics shown on the chart were favored

over topics such as student placement, and criteria and selectivity in admissions.

Student and Faculty Outcomes

There was a general agreement in placing importance on wanting a more formative outcome

for students rather than summative. As for faculty, respondents felt that putting out

publications and having positive student and peer evaluations were of more importance than

tenure. One respondent also suggested that there should be an avenue of “accreditation of

graduates in other jurisdictions.”

3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3

Academic Freedom

Relations with Alumni

Allocation of Resources

International Accreditation

Establishing Global Reach

Administrative Topics

3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2

Summative

Formative

Student Outcomes

3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4

Tenure

Student Evaluations

Peer Evaluations

Publications

Faculty Outcomes

32

2nd Annual




The Economics of a Legal

Education:

A Concern of Colleagues

33

THE ECONOMICS OF LEGAL EDUCATION:

A CONCERN OF COLLEAGUES

TO THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION TASK FORCE ON LEGAL EDUCATION

MARCH 2013

The recent chorus of complaints about the “crisis” in legal education has brought new

urgency to longstanding concerns. Law schools are operating in a difficult climate,

characterized by rising costs, strained endowments, reduced governmental assistance,

disaffected students, and declining applications. The undersigned Coalition of Concerned

Colleagues seeks to draw attention to the problems confronting legal education, and to

identify potential responses.

Over the last three decades, the price of a legal education has increased approximately

three times faster than the average household income. With the help of the federal student

loan fund, some ninety percent of law students borrow to finance their legal education and

the average law school debt now exceeds $100,000. Overall, law students in 2011-2012

borrowed more than $4 billion to pay for their legal education. Unsurprisingly, debt burdens

are unevenly spread and amplify racial and class disadvantages.

The price of legal education has risen as the job market for lawyers has declined. More than

two out of every five 2011 graduates did not obtain a full-time long-term job requiring a law

degree; the median starting salary of the class, among the less than half of graduates for

whom a salary was reported, was $60,000. The problematic economics are captured by this

fundamental mismatch: a graduate who earns the median salary cannot afford to make the

monthly loan payments on the average debt. Large numbers of current law students will be

forced to enter Income Based Repayment (IBR), a new federal debt relief program that

allows reduced monthly payments, but with significant costs for both debtors and taxpayers.

These costs may cause Congress to rethink the provision of easy credit to law students.

The price of legal education substantially affects access to the profession. The out-of-pocket

cost of obtaining a law degree ranges from $150,000 to $200,000 or more for many law

students. This erects a formidable economic barrier to becoming a lawyer and restricts the

career choices of those who do enter the bar. Although the federal government and most

law schools offer some loan repayment assistance to graduates who take public interest

jobs, law school programs are often insufficiently funded and the federal programs do not

provide full discharge until after 10 years of public interest employment.

Nor do these programs address the fundamental problem of how a lack of jobs, public

interest or otherwise, has now made law school a questionable investment. The federal

government estimates that, at current graduation rates, the economy will create about one

new legal job for every two law school graduates over the next decade. Most knowledgeable

observers believe that the situation is unlikely to improve even if the economy fully

rebounds. More employers are relying on paralegals, technology and contract attorneys to

do work previously performed by recent graduates, and cash-strapped public sector

agencies are facing pressure to curtail legal expenditures.

34

Many law schools are themselves in an increasingly difficult financial position. After years of

uninterrupted increases in enrollment and tuition, they now face a sharp decline in

applicants. As it becomes harder for law schools to fill their classes, all but the wealthiest

institutions will face pressure to cut expenses. Yet at the same time, preoccupation with the

annual ranking of schools by U.S. News and World Reports gives schools a perverse

incentive to spend more in areas rewarded by the U.S. News formula. Two examples are

expenditures per student and faculty- student ratios, which have risen dramatically in the

decades since the rankings went into effect. Schools also have incentives to reduce tuition

for students with high median GPA and LSAT scores, even though these applicants are

unlikely to have the greatest financial need. This causes students from modest economic

backgrounds paying full tuition to, in effect; subsidize the education of their more privileged

peers. A school can do better in the rankings if it spends more in ways that could enhance

its reputation. The combination of rising costs, declining applicants, and perverse incentives

puts the financial survival of some schools in question.

Legal education cannot continue on the current trajectory. As members of a profession

committed to serving the public good, we must find ways to alter the economics of legal

education. Possible changes include reducing the undergraduate education required for

admission to three years; awarding the basic professional degree after two years, while

leaving the third year as an elective or an internship; providing some training through

apprenticeship; reducing expensive accreditation requirements to allow greater diversity

among law schools; building on the burgeoning promises of internet-distance education;

changing the economic relationship between law schools and universities; altering the

influence of current ranking formulas; and modifying the federal student loan program. As

legal educators, it is our responsibility to grapple with these issues before our institutions

are reshaped in ways beyond our control.

The Coalition of Concerned Colleagues:

Anthony G. Amsterdam, New York University

Rhoda A. Billings, Wake Forest University

Paul Campos, University of Colorado

Paul Caron, Pepperdine University

Paul D. Carrington, Duke University

David L. Chambers, University of Michigan

Jesse H. Choper, University of California

Jim Chen, Michigan State University

Philip J. Closius, University of Baltimore

Roger C. Cramton, Cornell University (AALS President 1985)

Scott Cummings, University of California at Los Angeles

Charles E. Daye, University of North Carolina

Richard Delgado, Seattle University

Walter E. Dellinger, Duke University

Norman Dorsen, New York University

Frank W. Elliott, Texas Wesleyan University

Richard A. Epstein, New York University

Samuel Estreicher, New York University

Monroe H. Freedman, Hofstra University

Lawrence M. Friedman, Stanford University

Marc Galanter, University of Wisconsin

Julius Getman, University of Texas

Stephen Gillers, New York University

35

Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard University

Michelle Goodwin, University of Minnesota

Robert W. Gordon, Stanford University

Robert A. Gorman, University of Pennsylvania (AALS President 1990)

Phoebe Haddon, University of Maryland

Geoffrey C. Hazard, University of California, Hastings College of Law

William D. Henderson, Indiana University

Helen Hershkoff, New York University

Philip Heymann, Harvard University

N. William Hines, University of Iowa (AALS President 2004)

Mary Kay Kane, University of California Hastings College of Law (AALS President 2001)

Herma Hill Kay, University of California (AALS President 1989)

Orin Kerr, George Washington University

Patricia A. King, Georgetown University

Edmund W. Kitch, University of Virginia

William A. Klein, University of California at Los Angeles

George Lefcoe, University of Southern California

Richard A. Matasar, New York University

Deborah J. Merritt, The Ohio State University

Arthur R. Miller, New York University

James E. Moliterno, Washington & Lee University

Thomas D. Morgan, George Washington University (AALS President 1991)

Alan R. Morrison, George Washington University

Robert Nagel, University of Colorado

Burt Neuborne, New York University

Gene R. Nichol, University of North Carolina

Sallyanne Payton, University of Michigan

Richard A. Posner, University of Chicago

Todd Rakoff, Harvard University

Nancy B. Rapoport, University of Nevada

Deborah L. Rhode, Stanford University (AALS President 1998)

Daniel B. Rodriguez, Northwestern University (AALS President-Elect 2013)

Ronald D. Rotunda, University of Illinois

Edward L. Rubin, Vanderbilt University

Stephen A. Saltzburg, George Washington University

William H. Simon, Columbia University

Peter L. Strauss, Columbia University

Susan P. Sturm, Columbia University

Kent D. Syverud, Washington University

Brian Z. Tamanaha, Washington University

Michael E. Tigar, Duke University

Gerald Torres, University of Texas (AALS President 2004)

Robin L. West, Georgetown University

Michael Wishnie, Yale University

36




Report of Special Committee on Foreign Law

Schools Seeking Approval under ABA Standards

July 19, 2010

Committee Chair: Professor Mary Kay Kane

37

July 19, 2010 Report of Special Committee on Foreign Law Schools Seeking Approval under ABA Standards This Special Committee was appointed on June 10, 2010 and asked to report to the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar at its August 2010 meeting on the policy questions surrounding the question whether law schools located outside the United States or its territories, which have modeled their educational programs on the American model, should be allowed to seek accreditation under the governing Section Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools. Notably, this inquiry follows the thorough July 15, 2009 Report of the Special Committee on International Issues, chaired by

Justice Elizabeth Lacy. That report examined the impact of international issues on legal education and admissions to the bar, as well as the question of the various ways in which the Section should respond to those pressures, including the accreditation of non-U.S. law schools.

1

After a brief introduction, this report falls into three parts. The first discusses the policy implications and justifications for expanding the accreditation role of the ABA Section to encompass law schools located outside the United States or its territories. The second considers what special rules or concerns might need to be addressed should the Council determine to proceed to consider applications coming from such law schools. Because of the limited time frame in which this report was composed, no attempt is made to provide a detailed

assessment of exactly how to address the possible concerns raised or to set out special rules that should be adopted. Instead, this latter section is designed to inform the Council of the kinds of matters that need further decisions or adjustments should it be determined to move forward on the question of accrediting non-U.S. territorially based law schools. Finally, the report concludes with a series of recommendations. Introduction

As a result of the 2009 report the Council agreed to the

appointment of a standing International Issues Committee, which

currently is being chaired by Professor Dennis Lynch. That committee is

examining issues related to the use of an LL.M. degree as a qualifying

credential for foreign trained lawyers to be able to sit for a state

bar examination in the United States and whether special bar-admissions

consideration also is merited for graduates in common law countries

that follow a graduate law school model similar to that used in the

United States. Thus, this report omits examination of those issues.

38

There appears to be nothing in the current ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure that specifically addresses whether a law school seeking provisional approval must be located in the United States. Nonetheless, the Preface to the Standards notes that "The Council grants provisional and full ABA approval to law schools located in the United States, its territories, and possessions." (p. vi) And the Bylaws of the Section state: "The purposes of this Section as stated in its Mission Statement are ... to provide a fair, effective, and efficient accrediting system for American law schools." This quoted language certainly accurately describes the historic role of the Section's accreditation function. The question is whether it should remain so limited in the future. The 2009 Report details how the increasing globalization of

law practice has placed greater pressures on the state supreme courts and bar admissions administrators, as well as clients and foreign lawyers, to develop better information for making determinations as to the admission of foreign lawyers to the practice of law in this country. It notes that overwhelmingly the accreditation function of the Section informs the state supreme courts and bar administrators about the quality of the educational experience of an applicant so that expanding that function to include foreign educational experiences could be an important way to provide the type of information needed. Thus, it concludes:

Probably the most compelling justification for why the scope of the Section's current accreditation efforts should be expanded is that in doing so the Section

would be able to provide state supreme courts with a basis for deciding whether a person holding one of the degrees under these programs should be permitted to sit for their bar examinations and perhaps other conditions. (p. 25)

It also notes that the increased pressures for foreign practice in the U.S. and for Americans to practice abroad will continue regardless of U.S. cooperation so that the Section should help to ensure the intellectual and educational fitness of bar applicants to the extent their educational backgrounds justify ABA accreditation. Finally, it concludes on this issue that any expansion of the ABA accreditation function to accommodate these globalization pressures should be limited to foreign law schools modeling their programs under and meeting fully the prevailing

ABA standards and that no specialized, separate accreditation system should be established for foreign law schools generally. Rather, in exercising its existing accreditation function, "the Section should abandon any notion of territorial restrictions in accreditation." (p. 28) This committee's charge, therefore, is to examine more carefully that conclusion, including what its implications may be.

39

I. Policy Considerations A. Reasons supporting expansion of ABA accreditation to schools located outside the United States and its territories (1) As described in the 2009 Report, such an expansion would provide additional guidance for state supreme courts when lawyers trained outside the United States seek to be allowed to sit for a U.S. bar examination. Since that is a key function of the accreditation process generally, the expansion would be consistent with the historic role of the Section in aiding the state supreme courts in the bar admissions area. (2) If the Section does nothing to expand accreditation to schools located outside the U.S., pressures to find other routes

to U.S. licensure will continue to increase and two negative things will occur. First, states will be forced to make decisions about what education is good enough to allow foreign-trained individuals to sit for the bar exam and some states undoubtedly will authorize lawyers to enter the U.S. legal profession with weaker and less reliable training than is provided in ABA approved law schools. Second, because these decisions will be made from state to state, there will not be just one standard for evaluating educational credentials, but many of them, and that will result in a lack of clarity and consistency. These effects are harmful to the profession and the public. They also will put more pressure on bar examiners to raise bar-passage requirements since the bar exam will be the primary means to ensure minimal quality and this will have adverse consequences for the graduates of many U.S. law schools as well. Thus, if the ABA Section is

irrelevant in decision-making concerning the realities of the globalization of the legal profession, it will undermine its historic role as a leader on these matters. Yet inaction will have no impact on whether more schools located abroad will open, as they will simply find other routes for their graduates to enter the profession. (3) Statistics produced by the National Conference of Bar Examiners show that every year between 4,000 and 5,000 foreign-trained law graduates take a bar exam in the United States, mostly in New York and California. Although some of these foreign applicants complete a J.D. degree as an avenue of admission, most do not. Some of the non-J.D. graduates have additional education in the U.S. (typically a 20-hour LL.M. program), but some do not even have that educational exposure. Thus, most of these foreign

applicants for bar admission do not have the benefit of a J.D. program meeting ABA Standards, and it can be argued that a J.D. degree from a foreign law school that teaches a U.S. law curriculum and meets ABA Standards is preferable to the current situation. (4) If we believe that the American legal education model is the "gold standard" for legal education world-wide and that well-

40

trained lawyers are critical to the global economy, then a

willingness to expand accreditation to schools embracing the American model is an appropriate way to improve the training of lawyers globally and contribute to the modern economy and the international legal profession. (5) We are in a period in which different legal systems are converging as part of the expanding global economy. Expanding accreditation to schools outside U.S. borders that focus on U.S. law will allow these schools to be in a position potentially to develop cutting-edge curricula to address these trends and the Section thus will be in a position to be an active player in the dialogue about how to develop high quality legal training for the global economy. (6) Expanding accreditation would clarify that ABA approved

U.S. law schools can open branch campuses to further the various international programs that they now conduct and therefore would provide another opportunity for U.S. law schools to compete internationally in the legal market place. Failing to make such a clarification raises questions. B. Reasons against expansion of ABA accreditation to schools located outside the United States and its territories (1) This development could result in enlarging practice opportunities for foreign lawyers in the United States because graduates of foreign ABA approved schools then would be eligible to sit for a bar exam without any reciprocity or parallel

opportunities provided by other countries for U.S. lawyers. (2) If the foreign school is government-sponsored, political difficulties could arise if the Council failed to approve an application for accreditation and, depending on the issues presented, this could create problems or pressures both within the larger ABA and potentially with the Department of State. (3) Foreign students who never spend any time studying in the United States will not have the benefit of the acculturation process that naturally occurs when study is accomplished here and that provides context for understanding the development of U.S. law and professional ethics. II. Concerns and the Need for Special Rules As indicated earlier, if the accreditation function is to be expanded it is recommended that it only be done for the limited purpose of approving law schools that meet all the prevailing accreditation Standards. However, because the current Standards were premised on an understanding that the law schools being accredited were within the United States several matters that most would see as inherent in a law school program operating here

41

may need to be made explicit, rather than implicit, to avoid any

confusion when the Standards are applied outside the U.S. The following discussion highlights what we have identified as basic assumptions about programs currently approved under the standards, and the need to clarify that these assumptions are correct. It also raises other practical concerns that need to be considered. (1) The Standards do not expressly note that U.S. law must be the dominant focus of the curriculum, although that clearly is the case currently in ABA approved schools. For a school outside the country, we need to clarify this assumption that U.S. law must be the primary core of the educational program to satisfy the obligation to prepare students who are able to practice in the U.S. Standard 302(a) (1), which requires substantial instruction in "the substantive law generally regarded as

necessary to effective and responsible participation in the legal profession" should be read to mean "U.S. substantive law" and in the "U.S. legal profession". Similarly, Standard 302(a) (5), which requires substantial instruction in "the history, goals, structure, values, rules and responsibilities of the legal profession and its members" should be read to mean the "U.S. legal profession and its members". (2) The Standards dealing with faculty speak in terms of the need to have a well-qualified faculty. While many U.S. based law schools today have faculty members who are not primarily trained in U.S. law (as part of the internationalization of their curricula), or are not even trained in law itself, but in some other discipline, the core curriculum generally relies on faculty who have J.D. degrees. We need to make clear that the faculty at

schools located abroad must be predominantly U.S. trained law faculty holding J.D. degrees from ABA-approved law schools to ensure that they are in the best position to offer quality instruction in U.S. law. (3) In order to ensure that the training abroad is comparable to that in the U.S. and that graduates of such programs are able to practice in the U.S., English language facility, both spoken and written, is critical. Thus, it is important to have the curriculum taught predominantly in English. We recognize that the ABA already accredits law schools in Puerto Rico that teach solely in Spanish. While we do not know the history surrounding that allowance, we would note that Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory and the basis of the law in the federal courts there is U.S. common and statutory law. Further, the

capacity of the Section to accredit schools regardless of language is minimal, if not nonexistent, and we would treat the Puerto Rico schools as an historic anomaly--one that should not be repeated as we look to the future of training lawyers in U.S. law for a globalized practice. (4) In countries that have a very different social and governmental system, there is a concern about how we can ensure

42

that the students studying at the foreign law school have been

introduced to the social and political context in which U.S. law evolves since it is unlikely their undergraduate training would have exposed them to our system. Although many foreign students now coming to the U.S., both for J.D. programs and for LL.M. programs, have the same lack of background, their study in the U.S. should help to eliminate that gap. But there may be a need to require some basic education in the American governmental system for foreign students that we simply assume most U.S. students obtain prior to entering law school. (5) If the accreditation function is expanded to schools outside U.S. borders, a suggestion has been raised that there should be a clear policy providing that the Section can refuse to review an application, as well as on what grounds. We see the issues that might invoke the possible exercise of such discretion

as falling into two types. First, and easiest, would be when a school is located in a country that is on a U.S. "Banned List" (today, North Korea, Cuba, and Iran) so that travel to its location is not possible. Necessarily, those schools should be rejected out of hand (not that they are likely to apply). However, there are various standards that cover "softer issues" that reflect the U.S. cultural and legal values that may be inconsistent with at least the traditional values in some other countries. These include, for example, the standards on academic freedom, on faculty governance by the full-time faculty, and on nondiscrimination and diversity. It should be determined whether the Section should have the right to reject an applicant school when it has concerns that those values will not be honored. Additionally, the factors or procedures that should govern the exercise of that discretion need to be clarified.

(6) A concern was raised as to whether the expansion of the accreditation function outside U.S. borders might have any implications for the Council's recognition by the U.S. Department of Education as the national accrediting body for U.S. law schools. Preliminary indications from our outside Counsel indicate the answer is no. (7) A concern was raised that if the issue of increased opportunities for entry of foreign trained lawyers into the U.S. legal profession is one on which different sections and individuals in the larger ABA are deeply divided, then proceeding with this expansion could create additional contentious issues for the Section within the ABA. In fact, however, leadership of the ABA in the last several years has been very globally-minded.

(8) There is some question whether the expansion of the accreditation function outside U.S. borders will create a potentially undue burden on the Section's staff and volunteers to meet the additional workload. To the extent that greater efforts are required for these types of inspections and reviews, we believe that all those costs should be passed on to the applicant schools and inspection and accreditation fees adjusted

43

accordingly. Along similar lines, if it is agreed to go forward

with this expansion of accreditation, it is naturally difficult to decide all the issues that may emerge until one has some experience. Thus, it may be appropriate, at least in the early years, for some special pre-screening of applicant schools before a site-inspection team is assembled and sent in order to avoid misunderstandings and the expense of time and money if the applicant school is far from being in compliance. III. Recommendations Based on the preceding discussion, the Committee makes four recommendations. (1) The Council should approve going forward to allow the possibility of accrediting law schools outside the United States

borders that meet all of the prevailing Section Accreditation Standards for the policy reasons discussed in Part I. (2) The Council should request the Standards Review Committee in its ongoing comprehensive review to look at all the Standards to ensure that none of them unintentionally sets up barriers to this geographic expansion and to remove any such barriers that do not implicate the substantive standards ensuring a quality legal education. (3) The Council should consider drafting a policy statement to clarify the matters highlighted in Part II that deal with the underlying assumptions in the current standards, such as that the curriculum is primarily focused on U.S. law, the instruction is primarily in English, and the faculty are primarily J.D.

graduates of ABA approved law schools. (4) If the Council agrees with the preceding recommendations, recognizing that it is very difficult to consider in a vacuum all the issues that may arise when the Section has not before entered this arena, the Council should consider whether it might be advisable to allow a site visit on a trial basis of a foreign applicant school that wants to see whether it can meet all the standards. Respectfully submitted, Mary Kay Kane, Chair Elizabeth Lacy Dennis Lynch Randall Shepard

David Tang

44




Report of Special Committee on Foreign Law

Schools Accreditation

May 15, 2012

45

May 15, 2012

Executive Summary of The Special Committee on Foreign Law School

Accreditation

At its December 2010 meeting in San Diego, the Council authorized “the Accreditation

Project to go forward promptly with its consideration of the accreditation of law schools

outside the U.S. and its territories….” The Council specifically voted to engage key public

and private stakeholders, i.e., the Conference of Chief Justices, state bar examiners, legal

education representatives and representatives of the legal profession, in our consideration

of this significant issue.

During the past year, a Special Committee consisting of Dean John O’Brien, Professor Joan

Howland, Professor Martin Burke, former Chief Justice Ruth McGregor, Dean Steve Smith,

Professor Peter Winograd, Jerry Hafter and Greg Murphy designed and conducted surveys

to elicit the views of the stakeholder groups noted above regarding the pros and cons of

expanding the Accreditation Project to include foreign law schools. A survey also was

posted on the Section website to enable any interested person to comment. Survey

responsibilities were as follows: Chief Justice McGregor - state chief justices; Professor

Peter Winograd - bar leaders represented in the ABA House of Delegates and the National

Conference of Bar Presidents, and the National Association of Bar Executives; Dean Steve

Smith - law deans; Jerry Hafter and Greg Murphy - state bar examiners; and Professors

Joan Howland and Martin Burke - public survey on the Section website. In a number of

instances, survey deadlines were extended and reminders were sent to stakeholder groups

to complete the surveys. The last survey responses were received in April 2012.

The number of respondents to each survey varied widely as follows: 11 state chief

justices; 50 law deans; 8 state boards of bar examiners; 93 bar leaders; and 645

respondents (over 90% law students) on the public survey posted on the Section

website.

As detailed in the reports summarizing the survey results from each stakeholder group,

there was little support for the expansion of the Accreditation Project to include foreign

law schools. Responses favoring expansion of the Accreditation Project were largely based

on one or more of the following three rationales: expansion of the Accreditation Project to

foreign law schools (a) is an appropriate response to the globalization of the law; (b)

would promote the rule of law and strengthen law practice worldwide; and (c) would

stimulate expanded intellectual exchange between U.S. and foreign law schools. In

addition, a few respondents opined that, if the Council did not move forward in accrediting

foreign law schools, some other entity might attempt to undertake that role.

Responses opposing extension of the Accreditation Project were largely based on one or

more of the following four rationales: (a) the difficulty of developing appropriate standards

and processes, including means of monitoring compliance with academic freedom

requirements; (b) the diversion of limited Section resources away from the Section’s

primary role of providing support for U.S. laws schools and addressing the critical issues

currently confronting the Section; (c) the difficulty for foreign law schools to educate

foreign law students effectively in the culture, ethics, and values of the American legal

46

system; and (d) the difficulty of modifying the standards to accommodate accreditation of

foreign law schools at a time when the Standards Review Committee and the Council are

occupied with revision of the existing standards. In addition, many respondents, primarily

students, raised concerns about the impact the expansion of the Accreditation Project

would have on employment opportunities for U.S. law graduates.

After extensive discussion and review of all the available comments, the committee

unanimously recommends that the Council not proceed to undertake accreditation of law

schools outside of the U.S. and its territories. The Committee’s recommendation is based

primarily on the following three considerations:

(1) Accrediting foreign law schools would divert attention and resources from the

Section at a time when the Section and its Council are facing a multitude of

pressing issues which have placed significant strain on both the financial and

personnel resources of the Section.

(2) It would be difficult, if not impossible, to acculturate students in foreign law

schools in the culture, values, and ethics of the American legal system.

(3) A decision to accredit foreign law schools would require the Accreditation Project to

engage in the difficult task of developing and implementing appropriate standards

and processes, including the means of monitoring compliance with the Standard’s

academic freedom and other U.S.-centric requirements. These standards and

processes would need to be equivalent to those currently used in accrediting law

schools in the U.S. and its territories.

The Committee agreed that, regardless of any decision that the Council makes

about the accreditation of foreign law schools, the issue of establishing

appropriate standards and procedures for the significant number of foreign

lawyers who seek to be licensed in U.S. jurisdictions would remain unresolved.

47

Report on To the Council Accreditation of Foreign-Based

Law Schools: Legal Education

Steven R Smith

California Western School of Law

This is the report on the views of legal education regarding the possibility of the

ABA approving law schools outside of the United States. It is based primarily, although

not exclusively, on discussions with the deans of ABA law schools. In gathering

information I conducted a formal survey of deans; a focus group; and informal

conversations with deans, faculty members and those with an interest in international

education.

Summary

All three of these sources of information, plus informal discussions with leaders of

the Association of American Law Schools, produced the same general result. Generally, the

conclusion was that it is inadvisable for the ABA to seek to accredit foreign institutions. A

variety of reasons were noted for this conclusion, but the conclusion was unmistakable.

The results of the survey are described in greater detail below, but there was overwhelming

sentiment that the ABA should not seek to become involved with the accreditation of foreign

institutions at this time.

Process

The primary mechanism for assessing the view of legal education was a survey

conducted of the deans. A copy of the survey is attached. With the assistance of Peter

Winograd, a draft of the survey was tested with a few deans to determine its suitability. As

a result of this testing, several changes were made in the survey. The survey was

conducted in the early spring, 2012. Approximately fifty deans completed the survey.

A formal focus group was conducted by Bucky Askew and me during the annual

meeting of SEALS. Approximately twenty faculty members and deans participated in it.

(There were two deans from outside the U.S. who generally supported the ABA beginning

accreditation outside the U.S.)

A large number of individual conversations with deans and those interested in

international legal education were carried out during the past year. In these informal

conversations, of course, the sample is not at all random. Those conversations, however,

did give me an opportunity to assess in greater detail some of the responses from the focus

group and, later, the survey of deans.

In addition to these conversations, I had informal conversations with a few of the

leaders of the AALS. The organization has not taken a formal stand on the question of the

accreditation of foreign law schools. Without stating a position for the AALS, I believe that

the general conclusions reported below from the deans and others are consistent with the

feelings of these AALS leaders.

48

Results of the Survey

To the “summary question” of whether the Council should become an international

accrediting agency, 67% of the deans said probably not or definitely not, while 23% said

definitely or probably yes. Another 10% responded that they were uncertain. This

conclusion was reflected in the focus group and the individual conversations.

In the survey, as well as the other settings, a number of reasons were given for

opposition to the accreditation of law schools outside the US:

The Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar has more important

matters to attend to and should not dilute its efforts or divert its attention from these

critical matters.

It is unlikely that the accreditation of foreign institutions could be done effectively.

The credibility of ABA accreditation within the U.S. would inevitably be threatened by

this expansion of activities.

The standards would have to be changed to reflect the reality of foreign institutions

and that would mean that the "tail would be wagging the dog."

There are important legal assumptions underlying the current accreditation standards

(legally protected freedom of expression was the frequently noted example) which

are not assumptions that are safely made in all foreign countries.

Accreditation has within it implicit cultural assumptions, and those assumptions

would not apply in many foreign countries. Another cultural issue was that students

who attend law school without having been in the U.S. might not appreciate the

broader culture (in the US) in which U.S. law operates.

No matter how well intentioned, such an effort could be seen by foreign countries as

an effort by the ABA to impose American standards and American values on legal

education elsewhere.

There is no effective way for accreditation to consider adequately the important

informal education that occurs when students interact with legal institutions, lawyers,

judges and other legal experts. These informal elements are generally unstated, but

nonetheless central to high quality legal education in the U.S.

Those who favored the Council becoming involved with the accreditation of foreign law

schools emphasized the following:

International law is the future of the legal profession and the ABA should face that

reality.

49

The process would improve the legal profession worldwide.

The state supreme courts, and other bar-admissions authorities, in the U.S. are

facing serious problems in applying the education requirement for admission to the

bar. The accreditation of foreign-based law schools might not solve this, but it would

assist with the problem.

If the ABA does not accredit foreign law schools (from a U.S. perspective), someone

else will. This might not be done with high quality and could create problems for the

ABA in a variety of ways.

Responses to Other Questions

In a series of questions regarding what factors would be important or should guide

the Council if accreditation of foreign institutions were undertaken, respondents commonly

indicated that the more contact with U.S. institutions, the better. (These are questions B-

G.) There was, for example, concern about schools that would be preparing students to

come to U.S. to take the bar exam in the U.S. (as opposed to understand U.S. law for

working in a foreign country). There was an apparent preference for schools owned and

operated by US-based, ABA-approved schools. There was also an apparent preference for

requiring some portion of instruction to occur at a location within the U.S.

Taken together, the questionnaire produced somewhat unclear results related to U.S.

law students going to ABA accredited law schools outside the U.S. (The JD from these law

schools would presumably qualify the graduates to take the bar exams in the U.S.) Some

respondents expressed concern that this would simply be “off-shoring” law students who

were too weak to be admitted to schools in the U.S. Other respondents felt that the

diversity and presence of U.S. law students would contribute considerably to the education

of students in foreign countries.

Some respondents raised concerns that U.S. law schools opening branches in foreign

countries would create similar risks. That is, it might taint the legitimacy of the ABA

Approval as the universally accepted basis for meeting the education requirement for bar

admission in the U.S.

About one point there was strong agreement. That is, that should foreign

accreditation be undertaken, the ABA should not make changes in or grant waivers of any of

the accreditation standards to accommodate foreign-based law schools. Fully 77% of

respondents in the survey would oppose such changes or accommodations (17% were

neutral and 7% said it did not matter).

The deans made many comments in the formal questionnaire and these are available

in the results of the questionnaire which are attached to this report. The comments of the

deans were consistent with comments from others with whom I discussed the question.

50

Several of the results of this process were unexpected. I was surprised by the strong

sense that the ABA should not become involved with accreditation of foreign law schools,

and that almost no combination of limitations on that accreditation provided sufficient

assurance for deans (and others) to favor such accreditation. Even those with strong

international interest opposed the ABA undertaking this project. Those deans and faculty

members made the point that accreditation is too culturally-based for this to work easily.

Some felt it was an inappropriate imposition of U.S. standards on the rest of the world.

I was particularly surprised at the level of emotion these questions generated,

especially among deans. There is a significant number, although a minority of the deans,

who were suspicious of this process—including some who have been involved with the ABA

for a considerable time. These deans generally think that the ABA needs to spend

considerable attention to issues within the U.S. legal education system and the current

accreditation process. Candidly, a few expressed the opinion that the decision had already

been made to move forward with foreign accreditation. Again, this represented a minority

of those responding but it did produce an emotional reaction that I did not expect.

Several deans (who have been involved with accreditation and bar admissions) noted

the difficulty that many states have had applying the education requirement to bar

applicants who have graduated from foreign law schools. They indicated, however, that

they did not believe the accreditation of foreign institutions would be a significant solution to

this problem. Many graduates from non-ABA-foreign law schools would still seek admission

in the US, so bar admissions authorities would still have the question of how to judge their

qualifications for admission to the state bar. Several respondents noted, for example, that

legal education is at the undergraduate level in much of the world and it is unlikely that

existing high quality foreign law schools would change to a graduate model just to receive

ABA approval. Even with foreign law school accreditation, therefore, the question of what to

do with graduates of non-ABA foreign law schools would remain.

Conclusions

There is substantial opposition among almost all of the groups with whom I consulted to the

ABA pursuing or permitting any form of accreditation of foreign law schools. There is

suspicion that this would lead to a diminution of the quality of the ABA accreditation process

and that it would inevitably lead to changes in the standards for accreditation. At the same

time there is a recognition that the question of foreign law school graduates seeking

admission in United States jurisdictions does need study and consideration by the Section.

51

May 14, 2012

REPORT OF BAR ADMISSIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON

ABA APPROVAL OF FOREIGN LAW SCHOOLS

This is the Report of the Subcommittee of the Special Committee on ABA Approval of

Foreign Law Schools appointed to liaison with boards of bar admissions (the "Bar Admissions

Subcommittee;" Jerome Hafter and Greg Murphy).

Bar Admissions Subcommittee Questionnaire. To gather information from bar

admissions authorities on the proposal for the ABA to accredit law schools located outside of

the United States which would permit their graduates to sit for admission in U.S.

jurisdictions where graduation from an ABA-approved law school is the requirement for

admission, the Admissions Subcommittee prepared a Questionnaire covering key issues with

this potential ABA activity.

The Questionnaire requested responses to 15 questions concerning bar admissions

authorities' positions on whether the Council should accredit law schools outside the United

States for purposes of admission of their graduates to practice in the United States and how

the ABA's adoption of such a procedure might affect the relationship between the ABA and

the admitting jurisdictions.

A copy of the Bar Admissions Subcommittee Questionnaire and a Summary of

Responses is attached to this Report.

Distribution and Response

The Bar Admissions Subcommittee distributed its Questionnaire to the bar admission

administrators in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico. This distribution was made to the list of administrators maintained by the

National Conference of Bar Examiners. The President of the NCBE sent a message to the

jurisdictions encouraging them to provide detailed responses. The Questionnaire was

initially distributed on October 1, 2011, with a request for response by November 1, 2011.

This deadline was later extended to December 15, 2011. On April 1, 2012, the

Subcommittee, through the ABA Office, asked jurisdictions that had not responded to do so

by April20, 2012.

The Bar Admissions Subcommittee has received substantive responses from bar

admissions authorities in the following seven jurisdictions:

Alabama

Florida

Georgia

Mississippi

52

New York

Pennsylvania

Texas.

PD.6343041.4

While the responses represent a limited number of states, those states

responding answered all the questions submitted. Several provided thoughtful

comments on the ABA's present and potential role in admission of graduates of foreign

law schools to the bar.

The seven responses include responses from 5 of the 10 American jurisdictions

with the largest number of applicants for admission by bar examination: (1) New

York, (4) Florida, (5) Texas, (7) Pennsylvania and (10) Georgia. The seven states

providing written responses received approximately 36.1% of all applications for

admission to the bar nationally in the year 2011 (27,934 of 80,261 total

applications for admission by examination nationwide). The responding states

also include two of the four top states in the number of applications for

graduates of foreign law schools applying for admission in 2011: (1) New

York and (4) Alabama. Largely because of New York, the responding states,

represent 80.5% of all applications by graduates of foreign law schools for admission

to practice in the United States (4,522 of 5,620 such applications in 2011).

In addition to the Questionnaire, the members of the Bar Admissions

Subcommittee have appeared before the Board of Trustees of the National Conference

of Bar Examiners to discuss the Questionnaire and have discussed the subject matter

with bar examiners and bar admission administrators from a number of additional

states.

Summary of Responses

Attached to this are the State Responses The Subcommittee recommends that

the ABA Council members review responding states’ positions. The following are the

Subcommittee's comments on the responses.

Question 1. Should the Council, as a matter of mission and policy,

become an international as well as a national accrediting agency?

The majority of states responding answered this question in the affirmative with

respect to expanding the ABA's role in identifying law schools whose graduates should

be permitted to sit for bar exams in the U.S.

1 In addition to these jurisdictions, two other jurisdictions responded as follows: (1) Rhode Island responded that

the subject of admission of graduates of foreign law schools in that state is currently under consideration by

the Rhode Island Supreme Court and that the Rhode Island Board of Bar Examiners felt "uncomfortable" in

responding while the matter was pending before their highest Court; and (2) the New Mexico Board of Bar

Examiners responded that the Questionnaire will be discussed at a meeting of that Board on June 7, 2012.

53

Since New York receives by far the largest number of applications for admission and also

admits the largest number of foreign-educated lawyers, its response will be summarized

first. In 2011, New York tested 4,427 candidates from 135 countries. In the last five

years, it tested 21,984 foreign-educated candidates. New York's narrative response to

the Questionnaire stated, "First, if the purpose of the ABA extending accreditation to

foreign law schools is to make admission to practice in the United States more

widely available to foreign-trained lawyers, for our own state we do not see the need

for such accreditation." New York has its own program to permit graduates from foreign

law schools to take the New York bar examination. In addition, since the New York Board

of Law Examiners has proposed a rule change to the New York Court of Appeals to

require completion of a program of study at a law school in the United States, if the

Court of Appeals adopts the rule, ABA accreditation of a law school in a foreign country

would not carry with it eligibility to sit for the New York examination. New York

commented that graduates of foreign law schools accredited by the ABA would

nevertheless be required to complete an LL.M in the United States. New York

"question(s) the ability of a foreign law school to duplicate the American law school

experience, and particularly to offer a program of legal education that is substantially the

same as that offered by ABA approved law school in the United States." New York also

expressed "concerns regarding the ability of the ABA to maintain the values that are

critical to both legal education and our society generally, when operating in foreign

countries where the culture, legal system and values are different from our own."

To the extent the ABA's reputation with the jurisdiction now admitting

the largest number of foreign-educated lawyers might be important to the Council, New

York said:

The ABA would have to enforce the Standards for Approval

of Law Schools in a fair and consistent way. We are concerned

that the result will be the weakening of the ABA imprimatur,

such that not only will there be questions as to adequacy of

foreign programs, but questions might be raised as to the

application of the Standards in American law schools as well. This

might prompt a re-evaluation of our state’s reliance on ABA

accreditation as an educational requirement, and cause us to

adopt separate requirements, in addition to the instructional and

other requirements that are currently part of our Court's Rule.

In short, if the ABA were to begin accrediting foreign law schools, New York might

reconsider its reliance upon the ABA as an accrediting agency.

However, New York went on to say that that it would be "helpful" if the ABA or

other suitable entity "would evaluate foreign programs to determine the substance

of course and degree requirements for purposes of determining equivalency with an

American program and course of law study."

54

Texas, which currently provides that graduation from an ABA-approved law

school is a required educational credential for admission, noted that its acceptance of

ABA approval of the applicant's law school is not limited or affected by where the law

school may be located. Texas summarized its position on expanding the ABA's

activities to foreign-based law schools as follows:

It would be beneficial for there to be an entity having qualifications in

evaluating legal education that could undertake the mission

internationally to better ensure bar admissions officials will have more

reliable information than is presently available as to the comparability of

legal education claimed by foreign-trained applicants.

Texas suggested that the ABA Section would be a suitable agency to perform this

service since the ABA Section has "competency in evaluating law schools" and it would

be more efficient to marshal resources in a single authority than the status quo in

which individual jurisdictions, independently of each other, consider foreign legal

education on a case-by-case basis.

Question 2. Would your jurisdiction consider admission of applicants

based on a JD degree from an ABA accredited law school located outside

the United States?

In regard to the question whether their state would admit applicants based on a JD

degree from an ABA-approved law school located outside of the United States, the majority

of the seven states responding answered in the affirmative. Pennsylvania stated "no" to

this question.

Question 3. Are there conditions in certain foreign countries which

should make accreditation of a law school located in that country

impossible from the outset? For example, if the country does not adhere to

traditions of academic freedom and freedom of expression, should that

prohibit ABA accreditation of any law school located in that country?

Responses to the question of whether there are conditions in certain foreign countries which should prohibit accreditation of law schools from that country were divided

between those states (such as Georgia, New York and Pennsylvania) whose position is that ABA approval of law schools should be dependent on general political and human rights conditions in the particular country and other states (such as Alabama,

Mississippi and Texas)

2 New York's existing rules have permitted lawyers trained in common law countries, including Canada, the

British Isles, Australia, New Zealand, and certain other former British commonwealth nations in Africa,

Asia and the Caribbean, who have completed a course of law study substantively and durationally equivalent

to the education at an ABA-approved law school, to sit for the New York bar examination and to be

admitted to practice without further educational experience in the United States and to allow those from other

countries, largely with a civil law education, to do so after taking a prescribed LLM course with a

minimum requirement of 24 credit hours at an American law school. In the past five years, New York has

tested 21,984 foreign-trained candidates. This amounts to approximately 5% of all bar examinations in the

United States in this period.

55

which take the position that the question should be whether there is academic freedom within the law school itself and whether the law school itself meets ABA

standards. This is a question for which no definitive position by bar examiners can be drawn from the Questionnaire responses.

Question 4. Is the cultural milieu in the United States an essential

element of an American legal education and not capable of being replicated

abroad?

A slight majority of the responding jurisdictions indicated that the cultural milieu of the United States is not an essential element of American legal education. New York questioned the ability of a foreign law school to duplicate the American law school experience. New York's response says in pertinent part: "Our Court has felt that an important part of the education of lawyer occurs from being part of a vibrant law school

community operating within the culture and legal system of the United States."2

Question 5. Should any of the following factors make a difference to

the Council in considering accrediting law schools located outside the United

States:

Subpart A. Whether the law school was created solely to prepare students

planning to seek admission in the United States versus being part of an

established foreign law school also educating students to practice in the local

country?

A slight majority of responding jurisdictions felt that this should be a factor.

Florida responded strongly that a foreign law school created solely to educate applicants

for U.S. admission would be a "disservice" to ABA-approved law schools in the United

States. In contrast, Alabama responded "no" to this question.

Subpart B. Whether the country where the law school is located grants

reciprocity in bar admission to graduates of ABA-accredited law schools in the

United States?

All of the responding jurisdictions, with the exception of New York which did

not comment on this issue, and Texas which answered "no," felt that reciprocity for

graduates for ABA-accredited law schools in the U.S. should be a relevant consideration.

Subpart C. Whether the foreign based l aw school is owned and opera ted

by an AHA-accredited law school from the United States?

With the exception of Georgia, all of the states responding to this question said

that this should not be a factor in approval of the foreign-based law school.

Subpart D. Whether the JD degree program at the foreign-based

law school requires some significant portion of the instruction to occur at a

location in the United States?

The responding jurisdictions were nearly equally divided on this question.

56

Subpart E. Whether the legal system of the country where the law school is

located is based on Anglo-American common law versus civil law or other legal

systems?

The responding jurisdictions were nearly evenly divided on this question. In

practice, whether ABA approval would apply only to law schools in common law countries would have a huge impact on significance of the ABA approving foreign law schools,

since a majority of current applications by foreign-trained lawyers are from non-common law countries.

Subpart F. Whether the student body at the law school is composed

exclusively of foreign nationals versus containing primarily or significantly

students from t h e Un i ted States?

The responding jurisdictions, with the exception of New York, stated that this should not make a difference to the ABA. New York's narrative response pointed out that there may be some advantages in having U.S. students in the law school classroom

since this could result to a different experience than if all of the students were local nationals.

Subpart G. Whether the immigration laws of the United States, as they may

affect the ability of graduates of foreign-based law schools to practice in the United

States, should play a role in the ABA Council's decision whether to accredit law

schools located outside the U.S.?

The responding jurisdictions were divided on this question. Florida, for

example, stated that if graduates of a law school cannot practice in the United

States due to U.S. immigration laws, this should be given "great consideration" in

determining the ABA's decision to accredit such a law school. On the other hand,

Mississippi responded that U.S. immigration laws should play no role in the ABA's

involvement since "that injects political considerations" in the ABA's role as an

accrediting agency.

Subpart H. Whether the ABA Council makes changes in, or grants waivers

of, any of its accreditation standards to accommodate foreign-based law schools?

All of the responding jurisdictions indicated that waivers of ABA Standards

would be a concern depending on what standards are being waived.

Question 6. Would the eligibility of law schools located outside the United

States to achieve ABA accreditation affect the use by your jurisdiction of

graduation from an ABA accreditation standard as a condition for bar admission?

Several of the jurisdictions indicated that this would not change if the ABA

permitted law schools located in other countries to become ABA-approved. Alabama

stated that applying ABA accreditation standards to foreign-based law schools

would offer "more assurance" regarding the foreign candidate's suitability. Georgia

stated that its current education eligibility standard is graduation from an ABA-

approved law school and this would continue if the ABA were to accredit law schools

located outside the United States. Florida expressly stated its confidence in

decisions of the ABA on accreditation but might be concerned if ABA accreditation

was "modified significantly" for foreign-based law schools. As noted above, New

57

York said that ABA accreditation of foreign law schools might ultimately "prompt a

re-evaluation of our state’s reliance on ABA accreditation as an educational

requirement, and cause [the state] to adopt separate requirements."

Pennsylvania, expressly stated that its reliance on ABA accreditation as a

standard for bar admission would change if the ABA approved law schools outside

the United States (Pennsylvania did not further explain this response).

Question 7. Are there implications for the admitting jurisdictions

and bar admissions authorities (not mentioned in your responses to the

previous inquiries) that should be considered by the ABA Council before the ABA

considers accreditation of law schools located outside the United States?

Florida and Georgia pointed out that the ABA should be aware and consider

that the character and fitness reviews will be different and harder to conduct

for graduates of foreign-based law schools than for applicants who are U.S.

citizens. Georgia noted that the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE)

presently does character and fitness background examinations for the limited

number of applicants from foreign countries and the NCBE would have to agree to

do the investigations on the increased number of foreign applicants.

Pennsylvania inquired whether the ABA would require a graduation from an

"American style" undergraduate p rog ram before entry into an ABA-approved fore ign-

based law school. This raises the question of how present ABA Standard 502 would be

applied to law schools outside the United States where, presumably, a large majority of

the students would not have received their bachelor degrees from an American-

accredited undergraduate institution.3

Texas raised a question of how ABA approval of some foreign law schools might

affect Texas' present rule allowing attorneys from other countries to be approved on an

individual basis if their legal education was "similar” to a U.S. JD program. This leads

Texas to question whether ABA approval of certain foreign law schools could cause

Texas to abandon this present route to admission for graduates of foreign law schools

that do not obtain ABA approval.

The bar admissions authorities did not comment on other issues that have

been the subject of comments from other constituencies. For example, areas where

the bar admissions authorities did not comment or raise issues include (1) the

economic impact on the legal profession in the United States from foreign trained

applicants, (2) administrative issues for bar admissions authorities (other than

expanded character and fitness reviews), arising from ABA accreditation of foreign-based

law schools, and (3) increased expenses that would be involved in accrediting foreign-

based law schools and how that expense should be borne among applicants, their law

schools, the ABA and bar admissions authorities.

3

The ABA Section's Standards Review Committee is considering modifying Standard 502 to require

an undergraduate degree from either a U.S. or other locally accredited college or university, which would

eliminate the need for a unique waiver of this Standard in regard to foreign-based law schools.

58

Clearinghouse Approach to Foreign-Trained Lawyers

An issue raised by some responding jurisdictions (specifically including New

York and Texas), and by other bar admissions officials in discussion of possible

ABA approval of foreign-based law schools is whether the ABA Section of Legal

Education and Admissions to the Bar or another appropriate institution could

perform a role in certifying the credentials of graduates of foreign-based law

schools for admission in the United States, which would not involve formal

accreditation of those law schools.

The similar procedures in medicine and other professions for handling foreign-

educated applicants were discussed in the Report of the ABA Special Committee on

International Issues (the "Lacy Committee") dated July 15, 2009, Section 6, at Pages

18-21.

The procedures followed in medicine and other professions for verifying the

credentials of graduates from foreign medical schools and transitioning such graduates

to licensure in the United States parallel recommendations which have been made by

bar admissions authorities in response to the Bar Admissions Questionnaire,

particularly the suggestions from New York and Texas.

It should be noted that the certification program in medicine focuses on

verification of the individual applicant's personal credentials and further testing and

education, rather than the credentials of the foreign medical school which he or she

attended.4

The same individual focus could be applied in regard to foreign-trained law

students and lawyers.

Formal written responses received from bar admission agencies and discussions

with bar examiners and administrators indicates these authorities would be interested in

the ABA's establishing a program to verify credentials for foreign-trained law

students and to require further testing and advanced legal education in the United

States as conditions of bar admissions.

Conclusion

The Subcommittee on Bar Admissions appreciates the assistance of the ABA

Staff and the NCBE in conducting the survey, and the time, effort expended

by the responding jurisdictions.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BAR ADMISSIONS

OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ABA

APPROVAL OF FOREIGN LAW SCHOOLS

GREG MURPHY

JEROME HAFTER

4 The American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) now offers law schools

a limited certification of credentials from foreign-based law schools

59

2nd Annual




African Law Deans’

Concept Note

60

CONCEPT NOTE ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

REGIONAL LAW DEANS FORUMS (Emanating from the African Law Deans’ Forum)

Introduction

Despite the growing number of law schools that are producing lawyers, few countries have

association of law deans or legal educators operating at Nike Lake wide level. In fact, only a

handful of countries have national associations, let alone regional ones. There is a dire need

for regional associations or forums that will provide the much needed space to develop a

common approach and position in legal education with regards to curriculum and standard

setting for the accreditation of law schools; explore collaborative projects that would

improve teaching, research, and maximize the role of law in the development of various

continents. More importantly, they would facilitate experience sharing, enhance staff and

student exchange, promote legal scholarship that takes into account each continent’s

peculiarities, and overall, ensure high quality legal education.

Given potential benefits, the first ever Africa’s Deans Forum, held in South Africa from 15-

17 August 2012 recommended that such a continent wide Forum is established in the case

of Africa whose overall objective will be to increase collaboration among African law schools

and to share best practices on legal education.

It is in this light that this concept note, which is the output of a task team established at the

Africa’s Deans Forum, sets out some broad principles for IALS’s consideration that could

inform such regional Forums.

It is proposed that each continent (Africa, Asia, Americas, and Europe) should look at

establishing a regional deans' forum where such does not exist because deans are the focal

point of any law school. As such, interaction with other law schools on various continents

will likely be enhanced and become more effective when the dean, as head of the school,

interacts, is aware and informed about what exists elsewhere and importantly, is positioned

to take advantage of such towards improved legal education.

IALS affiliates

It is not intended that the deans’ forums replace the operation of the IALS on the continent,

but rather that they supplement and bolster its activities at regional level, while ensuring

each continent’s effective participation at the international arena. The Regional Deans

Forums would in essence be Chapters of the IALS.

Objectives of the Deans Forums

The objectives of the Association among others specific to each region would generally be

to:

- provide a forum to exchange ideas and share experiences and best practices on

legal education and training.

- facilitate inter-faculty staff and student exchange programs.

- explore ways and means of enhancing joint research and publications on legal

education and training.

Membership

IALS membership is presently open to all law schools that are accredited by the relevant

national bodies in their respective countries. As such, membership of each region’s Dean’s

Forum would be confined to members of the IALS.

61

Funding

The IALS has limited funding as a fairly new body and as such the regional forum should be

self-sustaining as much as possible. As affiliates of the IALS, no additional fees should be

required especially as only regional deans’ forums are being proposed. Since each law

school would be expected to finance their dean’s attendance to the Forum’s meetings,

administrative costs should be minimal and easily absorbable by the host law school. The

anticipated costs are costs relating to organizing the annual general assembly, publication

materials, and administrative expenses. It is proposed that the IALS should dedicate on its

website sections for regional forums to post their promotion and awareness information as

well as any other material that a regional forum may wish to send to its members.

It is also proposed that the Deans Forums meet annually for face to face interaction for

them to achieve their intended objectives more speedily. While the forums would use e-

communication to the fullest extent possible, physical meetings are seen as key to building

viable associations, especially at the beginning phase.

Governance and Administration

The management of the regional body should be elected by the member law schools. The

principle to be observed is that Nike Lake realities and diversities should be taken into

account in each region’s management body. It is proposed that there should be a

Chairperson, Vice Chair and a Secretariat for each regional Dean’s Forum to lead different

activities. Their role would be to coordinate the Forum, render administrative services, and

prepare reports to the IALS. The secretariat should not be fixed but should ideally be

elected at each region’s Deans Forum every two years. This would encourage participation

and prevent placing too much strain on just a few law deans. While rotation is important, it

should not be prescriptive until an adequate number of law schools on each continent have

become members of the IALS.

To begin with, the secretariat for each region should be provided by individual law

schools/regions who host the general assembly.

Agenda

To encourage taking relevant sub-regional issues into account, the items on the agenda for

each Dean’s Forum should be determined by the region of the organizing Law School; the

issues raised at previous meetings of the Deans’ Forum; and, the input from the IALS

through the International Law Deans’ Forum.

For the second Law Deans’ Forums in 2013, the Agenda should be determined by the issues

raised at the First Forum. Thus, for example, some important issues raised at the first

African Deans Forum include the status of African Law, information on accreditation format,

curriculum development, and staff support. These should be carried forward for further

deliberations and resolutions in the case of the African Deans Forum.

Activities

It will be appropriate for activities to be worked out at Forum meetings in the light of the

regional needs of each Forum and global visions of the IALS.

Immediate activities to facilitate the establishment of Deans Forums should center on the

following:

(i) Preparing draft Articles or Constitution establishing each Region’s Forum

(ii) Disseminating the draft for comments and inputs from all law schools in each

region

(iii) Finalization of the draft

(iv) Tabling for adoption before the next meeting for each region

The outcome of the activities should be shared through an online newsletter.

62

Task Team

Prepared by Task team consisting of Joy Ezeilo (Host 2013: University of Nigeria); Annette

Lansink (Dean & host of the 2012 African Law Deans Forum, University of Venda, South

Africa) James Odek (Dean: University of Nairobi, Kenya); Pamela Tibihikirra – Kalyegira

(Dean: Uganda Christian University, Uganda); Tahir Mamman (IALS Board member:

Nigeria); Fatou Camara Kine (IALS Board member: Senegal) Amy Tsanga (IALS Board

member: Zimbabwe).

63

2nd Annual




2013 European Law Deans’ Forum

Minutes

64

Minutes of 2nd European Law Deans’ Forum Tallinn Law School, Estonia

April 2013

(Thursday 11 April 10:00 – 16:30; Friday 12 April 10:00 – 16:00)

Present

1. Norma Martin Clement University of Leeds, England

2. Javier de Cendra Instituto Empresa Law School, Spain

3. Edita Gruodyte Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania

4. Michal Hudzik Kozminski Law School, Poland

5. Mary Kay Kane University of California, Hastings, USA

6. Jukka Kekkonen University of Helsinki, Finland

7. Tanel Kerikmäe Tallinn Law School, Estonia

8. Sulev Mäeltsemees Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia

9. Zaza Maruashvili Caucasus School of Law, Georgia

10. Lehte Roots Tallinn Law School, Estonia

11. Addi Rull Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia

12. Valentina Smorgunova Herzen State Univ. of Russia, Russia

13. Francis SL Wang Kenneth Wang School of Law, China

Welcome - Prof. Tanel Kerikmäe

Prof. Kerikmäe started by introducing Tallinn University of Technology, and the Tallinn Law

School (TLS). Compared to other law schools in Estonia, they are more cosmopolitan and

diverse. They have professors of Indian, Moldavian, Ukrainian, and Swedish origins among

others. Of the 850 students, ¼ studies in English and most of their foreign students are

Finnish and Georgian. He discussed the structure of TLS and who they partner with. The

following were introduced as TLS professors: Katrin Nyman Metcalf, Evhen Tsybulenko,

Tanel Kerikmäe, Katarina Pijetlovic, Pawan Kumar Dutt, Kari Käsper, Addi Rull. TLS also

utilize guest and visiting lecturers in their curriculum.

Prof. Wang introduced the International Association of Law Schools (IALS) as a non-political,

non-profit volunteer service association with over 150 member schools from more than 50

different countries representing over 6,000 law teaching faculty worldwide. The IALS is

dedicated to improving legal education through the exchange of ideas and learning from

each other. This is the second Deans’ forum in the region.

Last year there was a similar discussion amongst the deans and one of the major themes

explored was setting common criteria in terms of legal education. This is very hard to do

since there are differences between law schools. For instance, law education in most

countries is at the undergraduate level. In the United States, legal education is at the

graduate level. It is a fine education, but it is expensive. Its standards may not be

appropriate for other countries.

65

For many of our members, the majority of our graduates do not go into the “law business”

(judges, prosecutors, or practicing attorneys). Rather, most go into government service,

private sector, etc. in a variety of different occupations. This fact that many law school

graduates do not go on to practice law is true in many countries.

Given that, is there a commonality in legal education no matter whether it is undergraduate

or graduate, public or private, common or civil law, etc.? Is there a commonality in legal

education by region? What does it mean to have received a “legal education?” What voice

do legal educators have with respect to the inputs and outcomes of a legal education?

Would basic criteria for judging the outcome of a legal education, no matter where received,

is to have our graduates proficient in analyzing, reasoning, thinking, and persuading from a

specific “legal” perspective? Is there a difference when one studies law vs. chemistry or

sociology, etc? Should a student who receives a legal education, no matter where and from

whom, be proficient in a set of skills necessary to fully utilize the tools necessary in a legal

context? Perhaps, the commonality in legal education is in the way of thinking. Finally, how

do we measure these outcomes and what inputs are necessary to achieve them?

First, let us turn to comparing some regional differences in legal education.

Session 1: Current Issues Facing Europe in Legal Education – Prof. Jukka

Kekkonen

“I usually do not use PowerPoint, but I always have points.”

One of the reasons for holding this forum is that there are common problems despite the

diversity in legal education. That is why it is important to learn about each other’s best

practices.

The University of Helsinki (UH) is a public university where 60% of the money comes from

the state and 40% come from private sources. The new legislation was modelled after

Austria, UK, Japan, and Denmark where it is more of a top-down structure. UH aims to be

among the 50 top research universities. They are at 52 at the present. There is too much

effort put on strategic planning.

In law, only 15% of applicants are accepted after passing an entrance examination. Upon

graduating, all advocates are paid well. There is no unemployment at all.

How to generate top-class research and teaching?

Through less bureaucracy and administrative tasks. There is difficulty in cooperating within

the university. As a result, the best talents are lost to private companies. The concern here

is that the students may not be trained in the best manner.

What is the role of the Universities in creating innovations and in general?

Cooperation – Finnish law faculties have a variety of cooperation agreements with academic

and other institutions. For instance, we are cooperating with the Chinese Academy of Social

Sciences in discussing common problems and promoting the rule of the law.

66

Session 2: Open Discussion

The “Rule of Law” is an accepted concept across all borders. With respect to the “law”,

much of our vocabulary is the same. However, are our perspectives the same? Are those

perspectives affected by the way we teach our students? What other “inputs” beyond what

and how we teach will affect the outcomes? Should our outcomes be similar, and, if so, in

which respect? Should there be a commonality of perspective or approach for those trained

in the law?

How normative should curriculum be?

This is a challenge for professors. In Eastern Europe, the State is strong and students are

very conservative. They only want to study doctrinal law. They do not want to learn legal

theory, sociology, Roman law, etc. The state, market, students, and the university should

have their interests balanced.

Some students though, do not know what they want so there is a desire to expose these

students to things they may not be aware of. The undergraduate level has to be broader

than the master’s level. At the master’s level is when they should specialize.

In Tallinn Law School, Prof. Kerikmäe lets the students use different theories and

approaches so that they can understand that there can be different solutions. It is more

important to find the law than it is to know the law by heart.

Politicians (the ones who did not study law) think that those who studied law only memorize

civil codes. That is why it is important for those who receive a legal education to have an

understanding of the values of the rule of law and model those values. They also need to

have basic skills – analysis, research, writing, etc. Skills stay, but the law changes.

Knowledge is important, but how can lawyers distinguish themselves? The law student

graduates are trained in a specific way that a chemistry student is not. These include

textual analysis, problem solving, working with language, and analyzing.

Beyond doctrinal curriculum, skills are extremely important. Persuasion is a core value.

The students have to adapt to a multi-level legal system and thus must be able to use as

much elements as possible to protect their argument. Certainly the western discipline of

rhetoric plays an important part in defining a “legal perspective”. It is that argumentation

before third parties who will decide which provides the underlayment for the advocacy

process.

Faculty groups also posed some significance to this. In Spain, teaching methods courses

are open to all professors. The cases are shared. There is the curiosity to attend other

courses to see how young students learn. In Poland, there is no formal training. The one

common program they have is that the “old lecturers” guide new ones. The problem is that

we end up teaching the way we have been taught. In Europe there is too much emphasis

on the lecture format.

Successful lawyers defend their clients and win because they take care of procedural rules.

The substance of the law is not important, they see technicalities. However, the public

needs to understand that there are values underlying these procedures. So, are the

legislators doing a good job of explaining that to the society? Is it also the role of the law

school to educate public as to the law and its significance in ordering a civil society?

67

In Russia, a Master’s education has now become more of the norm. The undergraduate law

program used to be an elite program. However, standards have risen, particularly if a law

graduate wants to join the government. It is now almost compulsory to have a Master’s

degree. In the Master’s program, about half are devoted to research work. Educational

standards were increased in 2010. The standards stipulate all the subjects which should be

taught, all the notions of what should be taught, including all the materials that should be

given to the students.

Session 3: The American Experience – Prof. Mary Kay Kane

The ABA report is about “Foreign Law Schools Seeking Approval under ABA Standards.”

Prof. Kane describes how if one is in the U.S. and wants to accredit a law school, it would

take about 2 -3 years. A Chinese law school (Beijing University School of Transnational

Law) wanted to go through ABA accreditation, and it took them longer, but in 2010 they

petitioned for accreditation stating they complied with all the standards. 2008 was a critical

time in the U.S., with the collapse of the economy. This made a lot of people anxious about

expanding accreditation when the request was made, so the ABA Council appointed a

committee in June 2010 to review this issue. This committee was chaired by Prof. Kane.

The recommendation of that committee was that in general the ABA should allow it if all the

standards are met (see recommendation in materials). After the recommendation was

presented, there was a public comment period and negative comments came back. As a

result, another committee was formed, and they recommended in the summer of 2012 that

the ABA never adopt and/or accredit a law school which is not on U.S. soil.

It is important to recognize that in the beginning there was public, private support for legal

education. In addition, 90 % of U.S. students used loans to finance their legal education,

which are normally guaranteed by the government. This makes these loans easy to

securitize in the secondary market. Law school tuition increased dramatically along with

significant investments by schools into new facilities, along with faculty and staff. The legal

economy was booming.

However, the financial crisis of 2008 exposed some significant vulnerabilities to this system.

There was a sharp decrease in legal employment. Also, the ABA established a more

transparent employment reporting regime. With the downturn in legal employment, as well

as more accurate employment numbers, potential applicants realized that a legal education

did not guarantee the lucrative future that their loan indebtedness should have provided.

Applications dropped. The ripple effect is felt throughout the industry. By 2012, things had

changed for the worse.

Students in the American system study 4 years as an undergraduate. They do not study

law as an undergraduate. Legal education is a graduate program of an additional 3 years at

the graduate level for a J.D. degree. Social and political context are focused on during

training. There must be substantial full-time faculty and they must be dedicated to have

teaching and research programs.

In addition, the programs reflect cultural values. Academic freedom is present. Course

requirements highlight training and skills, intensive writing, and small classes (16 students).

The U.S. system believes a lot in small group work and pro-bono activities as well. The

current standards’ baseline is that students must know the history, goals, and values of the

legal profession.

68

It is important to analyze differences in values because it will help in implementation and

figuring out how to build the base values. One never stops learning.


Student Selection

Socio-economic factors/status (SES) as criteria for student selection was deliberated in this

section.

In Russia, entrance to university is determined by entrance procedures which include state

exams. Entrance is determined based on the grades. SES is not taken into consideration.

However, some flexibility is shown, e.g., orphans who have passed all the necessary State

exams may be admitted with a lower score.

In the UK, universities do look at socio-economic factors. Sometimes once in the program

already, those from a lower SES actually do better than those from a higher SES.

Prof. Kane explained that in the US, the Supreme Court states that you cannot take race as

a basis for admissions. However you can take into consideration the SES.

Prof. Wang elaborated that in China university entrance is based strictly on the score a

student achieves on the College Entrance Exam. There has been a movement to provide

some flexibility to certain schools whereby 5% of the entering class may be selected on

some additional basis. Additionally, if a student is from one of the designated minorities,

then that gives him/her extra points on the college entrance exam. Students must select

their major at the time of application.

Selection processes differ from country to country – from extremely selective judging on the

basis of grades, test scores and other activities and recommendations to entrance based

solely on the results of one test, to open enrollment whereby all graduates of secondary

education are admitted. This depends on the country’s policy as well as private vs. public

institutions.

Challenges Facing American Law Schools

There was also a dialogue on the state of law schools. Prof. Kane stated that because of the

economic situation in the US, some law schools will be closing. In the US, with the law

school applicant market shrinking, the smaller private schools get the “bottom” students. A

higher proportion of these students after graduation will are unable to pass the bar exam.

The students feel cheated. One alternative is for programs to be designed so that the

students coming out would be happy even if they cannot practice. If this format is to be

followed, there will have to be changes to the curricula, and some accreditation rules will

change (one or two years instead of three, etc.). The difficulty of changing the structure is

that it will require cooperation of tenured faculty. This may prove to be difficult.

For instance, at UC Hastings, historically 400 students are admitted each year. This is

projected to be reduced by 20%, which means less tuition and a need to downsize staff.

The problem is that tenured faculty cannot be laid off, so support services will suffer. In

the US, the 1st year of law school is focused on core courses, 2nd year builds on the 1st year

courses, and the 3rd year should be focused on skills training. There’s a need to see what

can be taken out and what can be put in.

69

There are discussions in California about a new one-year degree where one can be

competent in doing simple contracts. There wouldn’t be a lot of prestige associated with it

and it wouldn’t pay as much either. Once again, a difficult strategy for established law

schools to embrace.

In addition, there is an uneven distribution of lawyers. There is an oversupply in large

urban areas and an undersupply in rural areas. Both public and private sectors are cutting

back. Some students may still want to experience a law learning process but not

necessarily want to practice law.

Aside from the economic downturn, the recent ABA report on employment statistics of

graduates from ABA accredited law schools has also contributed to the precipitous drop in

applications. Law schools were required to report the number of students who had full-time

jobs 9 months after graduation in various categories including (1) jobs requiring bar

passage, (2) where a JD degree was an advantage. For the first time, this afforded

potential students a realistic outlook as to their employment possibilities. In the past, some

schools manipulated the system by employing students who did not have a job after 9

months of graduation. In addition, under the old system any employment was included

versus differentiating jobs requiring bar passage or JD degree advantaged.

Accreditation

Prof. Kane went into detail about how in the U.S., accreditation is every 7 years done by the

American Bar Association (ABA), which has been designated by the Department of

Education as the accrediting agency for American law schools. This is accordance with the

Standards for Law School Accreditation published by the ABA.

In Russia, Prof. Smorgunova explained the multiple levels of accreditation bodies. This

movement towards stricter accreditation is motivated by increasingly higher standards

imposed on the schools and the desire to limit the number of law schools accredited. To be

accredited, one must first pass public accreditation from the association of lawyers in

Russia. This is followed by accreditation from the ministry, and then there’s the state

accreditation. There are different sets of criteria for each accrediting body. In addition,

there are different entrance examinations for admission to university. Because of the

increasing demand on the part of employers (particularly the government) for Master’s

degree students, students are more inclined to apply to schools with a Master’s programs,

rather than just an undergraduate degree.

Session 5: Who are we? Who do we teach? For What?

The commonality among all of us is that we teach some aspect of law or the legal system to

students. The types of student, the structure of the environment as well as what and how

we teach vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The trajectories of our graduates also differ

from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as well as from institution to institution.

Prof. Wang discussed the cultural difference in the manner that some students might have

parents who value working more than education. Prof. Kane brought up that some students

come to learn after working or gaining some “life experience” first.

Prof. Kerikmäe expressed the importance of learning outcomes especially in the EU.

Surveys and assessments are needed for this. He said that the universities, market, and

students should work together. Everything must be taken into account. The market is

always smart, but the university should be the leader.

70

What should be the outcomes we want to see in our graduates – no matter what of

selection or how they were taught? Are there basic foundational factors which all those

receiving a legal education should possess at graduation? And how do we model and

instruct them so that at graduation they have inculcated these attributes as part of their

perspective of law and the rule of law? Students are tested on facts (provisions or

principles of law), but that there is also a need to focus on communication skills and other

competencies like problem solving, and analytical thinking. Law is very much about training

one’s mind to think and analyze in a specific way.

Session 6: What are the core competencies every law graduate should have?

Reference was made to an article by Professor Majorie Shultz and her colleagues at UC

Berkeley “Predicting Lawyer Effectiveness: Broadening the Basis for Law School Admission

Decisions” as to the core competencies which successful lawyers should possess as defined

by practicing lawyers and judges.

Her study revealed 28 such competencies which could be subject to psychological testing.

Her thesis was that the selection for entry to a law school should rely on more than a single

test which is academically centered. Other competencies are necessary for success in the

practice of law. These competencies ranged from the purely academic competencies (e.g.

Researching the Law, Fact Finding, Analysis and Reasoning) to administrative competencies

(e.g. Organizing and Managing one’s own and other’s work) to personality traits or skills

(e.g. Diligence, Stress Management, Passion and Engagement). Several competencies were

a combination of these categories (e.g. Negotiation Skills, Influencing and Advocating,

Strategic Planning).

This is a difficult area and much more work needs to be done to identify these competencies

and determine the law school’s role in teaching and shaping them in the students. Teaching

and/or shaping some of these competencies were discussed with the conclusion that

presently some of them are beyond the scope of a legal education.

Session 7: Standards Project (Outcomes and Inputs) – Phase I, II, and III

The European Union in its effort to continue European harmonization and integration has

developed a variety of programs to foster collaboration and integration in higher education.

These programs are Eurocentric with some exceptions (e.g. Erasmus Mundus, and Jean

Monnet). The Commission’s establishment of the European Higher Education Area is

supported by a variety of programs which provide grants, scholarships and other funding to

encourage improvement and integration of European higher education. In addition,

uniform criteria and standards are applied by the different programs for universities seeking

certification, grants or participation in the programs. Most significant to law schools and

faculties are the following:

The projects are described as follows:

1) Bologna Process

The Bologna Declaration is a voluntary undertaking by each signatory country

to reform its own education system; this reform is not imposed on the national

governments or universities. As for Member States of the European Union (EU),

Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that the

Union "shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging

71

cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and

supplementing their action.”

A. The Bologna Declaration involves six actions relating to:

1. a system of academic degrees that are easy to recognize and

compare. It includes the introduction of a shared diploma supplement

to improve transparency;

2. a system based essentially on two cycles: a first cycle geared to the

labor market and lasting at least three years, and a second cycle

(Master) conditional on the completion of the first cycle;

3. a system of accumulation and transfer of credits of the ECTS type used

in the Erasmus exchange scheme;

4. mobility of students, teachers and researchers: elimination of all

obstacles to freedom of movement;

5. cooperation with regard to quality assurance;

6. the European dimension in higher education: increase the number of

modules and teaching and study areas where the content, guidance or

organization has a European dimension.

In the Bucharest Communiqué, April 2012, the Ministers identified three key

priorities - mobility, employability and quality, and emphasized the importance of

higher education for Europe's capacity to deal with the economic crisis and to

contribute to growth and jobs. Ministers also committed to making automatic

recognition of comparable academic degrees a long-term goal of the European

Higher Education Area.

2) Erasmus

Of particular interest to our members would be the Erasmus Mundus Program.

This is a cooperation mobility program in the field of higher education that aims to

enhance the quality of European higher education and to promote dialogue and

understanding between people and cultures through cooperation with Third-

Countries. In addition, it hopes to contribute to the development of human resources

and the international cooperation capacity of Higher education institutions in Third

Countries by increasing mobility between the European Union and these countries.

The Erasmus Mundus program provides support to:

1) higher education institutions that wish to implement joint program at

postgraduate level or to set-up inter-institutional cooperation

partnerships between universities from Europe and targeted Third-

Countries;

2) individual students, researchers and university staff who wish to spend

a study / research / teaching period in the context of one of the above

mentioned joint programs or cooperation partnerships;

3) any organization active in the field of higher education that wishes to

develop projects aimed at enhancing the attractiveness, profile,

visibility and image of European higher education worldwide.

3) ECTS System – European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System

ECTS makes teaching and learning in higher education more transparent

across Europe and facilitates the recognition of all studies. The system allows for the

transfer of course credits between different institutions thereby creating greater

student mobility and more flexible routes to gain degrees. It also aids curriculum

design and quality assurance.

72

Institutions which apply ECTS publish their course catalogues on the web, including

detailed descriptions of study program, units of learning, university regulations and

student services.

Course descriptions contain ‘learning outcomes’ (i.e. what students are expected to

know, understand and be able to do) and workload (i.e. the time students typically

need to achieve these outcomes). Each learning outcome is expressed in terms of

credits, with a student workload ranging from 1 500 to 1 800 hours for an academic

year, and one credit generally corresponds to 25-30 hours of work.

4) The Jean Monnet Program

The Jean Monnet Program serves to stimulate teaching, research and

reflection on European integration in higher education institutions. It includes the

creation of Jean Monnet Chairs, Centers of Excellence, Modules, information and

research activities as well as support for academic associations of professors and

researchers in European integration.

Jean Monnet projects are selected on the basis of their academic merits and

following a process of rigorous and independent peer review.

Originally launched in 1989, these projects are present in 72 countries across the

five continents between 1990 and 2011.

The program beneficiaries include higher education institutions and/or associations of

professors and researchers specializing in European integration. To support their

work the Jean Monnet program funds the following actions:

Key Activity1: Jean Monnet Action

The program beneficiaries include higher education institutions and/or associations of

professors and researchers specializing in European integration. To support their

work the Jean Monnet program funds the following actions:

• Jean Monnet Chair

• "Ad personam" Jean Monnet Chair

• Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence

• European Module

• Association of professors and researchers

• Information and research activities

• Jean Monnet multilateral research groups

Key Activity 2: Support specified institutions dealing with issues relating to European

integration

The Jean Monnet program also supports certain key institutions and associations

active at European level in the field of education and training. Operating grants are

awarded to support certain operational and administrative costs of these institutions

pursuing an aim of European interest.

Key Activity 3: European associations active at European level in the field of

European integration and education and training

Key Activity 3 of the Jean Monnet Program provides co-funding in the form of

operating grants to support certain operational and administrative costs of European

associations active in the fields of European integration and education and training. Source – EU - http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/education

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/education

73

A comparison between the efforts of the EU in higher education integration was discussed.

The efforts of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) in its integration was

identified as a ripe area for cross regional interactions. There were comments on how the

Bologna process was the vision, but that some negativity can already be seen. Schools

appear to have had a mixed experience with it, though many of their students have taken

advantage of it. Regionalism still exists and the free movement of academics is still rocky.

A major challenge to a more robust integration of education in Europe stems from the fact

that education is not one of the EU authorities’ competencies – it is left largely to the

member states. The above initiates are a step forward in the integration and harmonization

process, but much more needs to be done.

Prof. de Cendra said that the goal in Spain is a single market – to break internal barriers in

the different regions. Spain is unhappy with the Bologna process since the autonomy of

Spanish Universities is threatened. They would lose control. They would have to hire foreign

professors and change the curricula. Students hate the Bologna process too, as it is

expensive. Students have to pay for LL.M.

EU has no competence (authority to regulate) in the education field. This has been left to

the individual nation states. In the recent EU budget negotiations, education and innovation

were last on the agenda. However, these programs which encourage efforts at

harmonization and integration will over time bring institutions closer together.

In Poland, the Bologna process is not acceptable. This is the same for Slovenia, although

ECTS is accepted so there may be some advantages coming. In the UK, Bologna

harmonization is found to be interesting. More British students want to study in EU

countries for free.

In conclusion, the Bologna process sets standards for cooperation. However, there is no

drive or push. It is more effective for some disciplines (science), but not so much with

others, (e.g. more effective for engineering students than for law students). The

governments are also to blame since they encourage science studies over law studies.

Prof. Smorgunova explained that Russia signed the Bologna Agreement in the 1990s. There

were already a lot of developments and modernizations that took place before the Bologna

agreement was signed. However, the law program was a problem. It was only in 2010 that

the law faculties became Bologna compliant. New students from the 5-year law program

were better prepared. In Russia, there is limited funding for the Bologna process, so there

has not been a robust integration with the process. Russia has made significant strides in

modernizing its higher education institutions. These recent reforms will continue to improve

the overall quality of Russia’s universities as more resources are devoted to this effort.

Who regulates and sets standards for legal education? Does that have an impact on whom,

how and what you teach?

Every institution would love to be independent and have its own guaranteed source of

funding to which it is only answerable to itself. Unfortunately, this is never true. Normally,

law schools or faculties answer to a larger university system which in turn must be

answerable to state or private oversight. Legal education itself is usually regulated by state

and/or professional associations.

There was a suggestion that the IALS conduct a survey and develop minimum requirements

for a sound legal education which can then be used by members to educate their regulators

as to outmoded or deficient local standards set by government or professional

74

organizations. Law schools lack a serious voice in the setting of the criteria under which

they are judged. There are no international standards, nor any movement to develop one.

Legal educators are acutely aware of increasing globalization and the need to educate our

students for the world they will confront. Regulators (state and professionals) systemically

by their very nature are domestically focused. The necessity of a globalized legal education

cuts against their natural parochial perspectives.

There was a clear sentiment that law schools should develop its own voice and have a dialog

with its stakeholders. Law schools need to show leadership in this area.

Session 8: Standards (Outcomes and Input) Project – Specific Issues to be

Considered

In discussing standards, the traditional starting point has been the input (size of faculty,

number of books, curriculum, etc). Prof. Kane has suggested reversing the approach. In

trying to distill commonalities for a global legal education why not first look for common

outcomes for our students and faculty and then explore a variety of inputs which will help

us achieve those outcomes. Those inputs would certainly by influenced by the myriad of

differences we have among legal education institutions.

A study from South Africa, “The Legal Education Reform Project” (see attachment) was

introduced which outlined legal education outcomes in the following categories:

1. The ability to understand, analyze, investigate, and solve problems

2. Proficiency in reading, writing, and speaking English

3. The ability to read and interpret statutes and legal documents

4. The ability to construct and communicate an argument

5. Understanding of the principles of law and how they apply in practice

6. Research skills, both in general and specific to the profession

The proposals of this study were never adopted in South Africa.

Other areas were discussed such as the types of assessments of students, both summative

and formative. Staffing was another issue. How should the hiring and firing of faculty,

support staff, etc. be decided? Should government officials and judges be part of the

faculty? Would it be better if they were part-time academics rather than full-time? Should

practicing lawyers be teachers?

How do we assess the outcome?

Exit exams, bar exams, and state exams only test the stock knowledge. It should be a

combination of assessing one’s knowledge, skills, and values. This should include

employability skills such as time management.

There was a suggestion to ask employers (law firms, banks, big companies) how the

students are faring over the years and see what the factors are. Employers could also

assess/examine students in law school.

There were objections to this suggestion citing as reasons that it goes against the

philosophy of the law school and education in general. There is the chance that it might end

up becoming a trade (vocational) school. There is a mix-up between a good law graduate

and a good lawyer. In addition, asking employers to design a curriculum is problematic

75

because lawyers have different areas of expertise. It is better to ask employers for general

advice.

The discussion went back to the topic of what the core competencies of a law graduate must

be. One was the ability to think like a professional. He/she must be able to think legally. A

balance between practical and academic approach is needed. Law schools must decide

competencies. Feedback from lawyers will be helpful. Law schools keep these amongst

themselves and constantly upgrade it. However, they must be willing to admit that they

need to open up to outside cooperation so that they can prosper through support. A

cooperation between law school faculties should be present. The next question then is, how?

Establishment of regional deans’ councils:

There was a discussion of the proposal by the African Deans’ Forum on the formation of

regional deans’ councils for the IALS. There was interest in this proposal but the consensus

was that it was premature. “We should do something first, then see what structure we

need”. What was expressed that we for the time being need to be more flexible and move

matters forward under the general IALS umbrella as a group of global deans rather than

fixing in place a regional structure.

There was consensus that as most faculty members are not interested in their Dean’s areas

of responsibilities, Deans need to develop their institutions. As the administrative as well as

intellectual leaders of their respective institutions, it is very helpful to share experiences and

challenges with similarly situated colleagues not only in their own country but worldwide.

However, individual faculty may well be interested in working with their worldwide

colleagues in their same area of teaching and scholarship to help develop specific outcomes

and inputs for that doctrinal field. This should be explored as possible sub-sections to the

annual meeting.

The Association’s focus should be on legal education globally, as that is the strength of this

group. It is critical that law schools learn from each other (mission of IALS) and be able to

give access to deans of law schools in third world countries who do not always have these

opportunities (e.g. Visiting Scholar program).

76

2nd Annual




2013 Asia-Pacific Law Deans’

Forum Minutes

77

Minutes of 2nd Asia-Pacific Law Deans’ Forum

University of Economics and Law Vietnam National University, Vietnam

May 2013

(Monday 13 May 9:45 – 16:45; Tuesday 14 May 9:30 – 16:00)

Present

1. Jassim Al Shamsi United Arab Emirates University, UAE

2. Muchamad Ali Safa’at Brawijaya University, Indonesia

3. Aishah Bidin National Univ. of Malaysia, Malaysia

4. Nirmal Chakrabarti Kalinga Instit. Of Industrial Technology, India

5. Simon Chesterman National University of Singapore, Singapore

6. Nguyen Ngoc Dien University of Economics and Law, Vietnam

7. Nguyen Tien Dung University of Economics and Law, Vietnam

8. Aua-aree Engchanil Chulalongkorn University, Thailand

9. Eric Enlow Handong International Law School, Korea

10. Baldomero Estenzo University of Cebu, Philippines

11. Muhammad Hawin Universitas Gadjah Madah, Indonesia

12. Barbara Holden-Smith Cornell University, United States

13. Dolly Jabbal Gujarat National Law University, India

14. Taslima Monsoor University of Dhaka, Bangladesh

15. Bradford Morse University of Waikato, New Zealand

16. Le Vu Nam University of Economics and Law, Vietnam

17. Nguyen Thi Hong Nhung University of Economics and Law, Vietnam

18. Simon Rice Australian National University, Australia

19. Johan Sabaruddin University of Malaya, Malaysia

20. Sanjeevy Shanthakumar ITM Law School, India

21. Sihabudin Brawijaya University, Indonesia

22. Duong Anh Son University of Economics and Law, Vietnam

23. Nguyen Ngoc Son University of Economics and Law, Vietnam

24. Paripurna Sugarda Universitas Gadjah Madah, Indonesia

25. Wasis Susetio Esa Unggul University, Indonesia

26. Veeravagu Thamilmaran University of Colombo, Sri Lanka

27. Khemthong Tonsakulrungruang Chulalongkorn University, Thailand

28. Francis SL Wang Kenneth Wang School of Law, China

29. Xiaobing Xu Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China

30. Stephen Yandle Peking Univ. School of Transnational Law, China

78

Welcome - Prof. Nguyen Tien Dung

Prof. Dung welcomed all the participants and introduced UEL as an institution established in

2004. So far, they have achieved good results and evaluations from the community.

However, they have also been met by some challenges. Some of which were in the areas of

human resources, curriculum, and student retention. The vision of UEL is to be an

international standard university by the year 2020, so the necessity of improving the

standard of teaching and research in legal aspects play a very important role.

Prof. Wang introduced the International Association of Law Schools (IALS) as a non-political,

non-profit association with members representing up to 50 different countries. The IALS is

dedicated to improving legal education through the exchange of ideas and learning from

each other. This is the second Deans’ forum in the region.

Session 1: Who are we? Who do we teach? For What? – Prof. Francis SL Wang

Who are we?

We are a gathering of deans from the many law schools of the Asia-Pacific region involving

old and new schools, small and larger institutions, and public and private schools. Aside

from these differences though, the focus is the same. We are here to improve legal

education by sharing experiences and learning from each other.

Who do we teach?

We teach all types of students from many countries, both at the undergraduate and

graduate-level. We all want to train and educate high-quality students.

For what?

It is important to realize that the paths of our students do not necessarily lead them to

practice law. For those who study law, particularly at the undergraduate level, the vast

majority of them do not go on to be lawyers, judges or prosecutors. Many go into

government service, while others pursue a variety of careers.

Is there a commonality which should be shared by all graduates who have received a legal

education?

If we divide up the outcomes of any education into three components – knowledge, skills

and values – what common outcomes should someone with a legal education share with

anyone else who also received a legal education? Are there commonalities to a legal

education which transcend national boundaries and systems?


Some subjects that should be taught include international public law and international

private law. We should define the purpose and interests of legal education. This is a two-

step approach:

i. Create a sound curriculum, and

ii. Improve the way that we teach (methodology)

In addition, students need to be taught about the needs of the international commerce. The

knowledge that we teach students should be powerful and can be used in practice, as its

79

critical capacity is in the responsibility and the way they apply what they know and what

they believe of the laws.

Globalization and harmonization are more current, so change is needed. A global voice

should be developed by taking a look at outcomes first, and then referring back to the

standards (inputs). The content that we teach students is very important. However, we

cannot teach them all, so we should focus on knowledge and skills. The students can learn

the rest of from other sources. Finally, students should learn how to respect the law.

A much more difficult aspect is how to teach values. Those who have received a legal

education are in a privileged status, and they should act accordingly. We do not do a good

job in helping our students understand the responsibilities which attach to that special

status. This is an area that needs further study to develop guidelines and suggested

practices.

Session 3: Current Legal Education Issues in the Asia-Pacific

Prof. Chesterman explained that Singaporean law schools always aim to be international

schools. More and more students, especially in Asia-Pacific countries visit and study law in

Singapore. The law schools there set the goals that it must get in the process of teaching

and educating. The Singaporean legal system is common law. Schools have concentrated

on lawyering skills and try to create values through classes.

He further explained that Singaporean schools try their best to harmonize and satisfy the

requirements of globalization. They include subjects related to internationalization and

globalization in many disciplines like private law, public law, business law, etc.

The teaching method most successful in Singaporean law schools is teaching in smaller

sized classes. The small classes have been suitable to clinical and practicing methods, and

harmonize with the teaching strategy of the schools.

Session 4: Small Group Discussions

This portion explored more of the legal education issues across the Asia-Pacific. Here are

some of the experiences in various countries:

Vietnam – They confirmed that the goal of curriculum is related to the development

of the country. They want more flexibility on the curriculum. Based on the needs of

employer, they have two kinds of subjects: compulsory and optional (elective)

subjects. UEL focuses on combination between law and economics, theory and

practice. There are many economic and financial subjects into their curriculum.

Some subjects can connect with international programs such as international law,

international private law, and international investment law. They have a strong

community/ clinical legal education program and became the leading CLE (Clinical

Legal Education) institution in Vietnam. They have also close cooperation with

international partners.

Indonesia - Indonesia has more than 700 public and 10 private law schools. In the

public schools, the government uses public finance to support the curriculum,

students, and school staff. On the other hand, private schools have been run by

private organization and bodies. There is a range of ranking systems used to

evaluate and assess the teaching and academic ability of law schools in the country.

In addition, to meet the needs of globalization, many schools established and run the

Clinical Legal Education programs, and provide the CLE into the curriculum as a

80

credited subject. Some schools apply online programs. Public schools do not work

well because they must follow the standard of the states where they are located.

India - India has more than 1000 law schools in the country, including private and

public schools. The globalized aspects of teaching law in India appear in those

situations. More and more foreign lawyers practice their business in India and law

schools always desire to put international law subjects into the curriculum. Law

schools always meet a “dilemma” between international credits and human

resources.

Malaysia - In Malaysia, law schools have been not merged with other faculties/

schools, so there is no mixing mechanism in law education. It leads to a practical

situation that law students are not harmonized with other majors’ knowledge such as

economics, sociology and others.

Bangladesh - In Bangladesh, international/ non-governmental organizations love to

support law schools in IP classes. Besides, to improve the skills of students in the

studying time, they focus on clinical legal education by teaching skills, celebrating

moot court, train students in the clinics and other methods.

Philippines - In the Philippines, the law curriculum is mandated by the Philippine

Legal Education Board. Also, the students, majority of them, are working students.

That is why in Cebu, Philippines, no law school is offering law courses during the day

time. All Law Classes are held in the evening to accommodate the working students.

Also, most, if not all, the Professors of Law are part time professors – either law

practitioners, judges, justices, prosecutors or government employees. The reason

for this is probably because the salary of law professors is not large enough and

there are not many students in the College of Law.

China – In China, law schools or departments offer a variety of degrees depending

on accreditation by the Ministry of Education. The basic undergraduate degree is the

LL.B. There are two types of master’s degrees – LL.M and J.M. The J.M degree is for

students who did not major in law as an undergraduate, whereas the LL.M degree

requires an undergraduate degree in law. The masters programs are three years

after undergraduate. Some schools also offer Ph.D. in a variety of subjects, once

again depending on accreditation to offer such a program by the Ministry of

Education.

Session 5: The American Experience

In the US, a law degree is a graduate degree where students must have a bachelor’s first

and then have three years in law school (JD). In the first year the emphasis of the teaching

methodology is the case/dialogue method. Discussion revolves around appeals court

decisions where the student is taught how to figure out a case, what it is, and how to

resolve it. The cases require a criticism from the students where they will look at and

evaluate the decisions of judges typically in contract, property and procedure cases. They

learn legal research and writing in their first year. In the 2nd and 3rd year, they build on

courses from the 1st year. The law schools reputation is highly based on rankings. A higher

ranking means a better reputation for the law school.

Each state has particular requirements for those who want to practice in their states.

81

Current issues include cost, salary, job outlook, number of law schools, and reduced

financial support. Typically, it costs around $20,000/year for public schools and

$50,000/year for private schools. Many students have to get a loan for this, and so they

are in heavy debt after graduation. The salary for law graduates in 2011 was around

$60,000/year. It costs about $1500/month to pay their loans. Over 90% of law school

graduates have loans (for 2009, 85% of graduates from American Bar Association

accredited law schools had debt loads of almost U.S.$100,000, in 2011 the average debt

load exceeded U.S.$100,000). These loans are guaranteed by the federal government, so

obtaining them from lenders was relatively easy as the lender did not take on the student

credit risk.

There are 202 law schools in the United States, which are too many for the country. The

median salary of beginning lawyers has dropped from U.S. $72,000 in 2009 by 17% to

$60,000 in 2012. Employment rates of graduates from ABA accredited law schools for the

class of 2012 for full time jobs requiring a law degree nine months from graduation is

reported to be about 55%. Of the almost 45,000 law graduates expected each year, it is

projected that only 25,000 law jobs will be available.

The 2007-2008 financial crises have led to a reduced financial support for the law schools.

In addition, they have received a lot of criticism both from the inside and outside the

schools. The popular press is full of articles describing the crisis in legal education.

Session 6: Small group discussions

This part of the forum was focused on the outcomes and inputs of legal education.

As agreed upon at the beginning of the Conference, every subject that the law school teach

student must involve in 3 main factors (the outcomes), which are knowledge, skills and

values. Every country focuses on the different values which belong to the culture of the

nation. However, Asia-Pacific law schools have common values that they can share with

each other. The society is also different so we need assess the particular aspects of the

countries. There is a difficulty in articulating specific “Asian” values which would inform the

teaching of law. This quandary may stem from the fact that the system of law (statutory

law, lawyers, judges, court system, common or civil law, etc.) have on a whole been

imposed by colonization or adoption by most of the countries in the region. What is truly

“indigenous” is usually not expressed through the formal institutions of the law.

In China, law schools teach students much contents depended on the culture experience.

Law schools partly get the social pressure, such as, in cases, the Government used political

pressure and power to solve the dispute and do not consider about how the laws are

applied. In these politically sensitive cases, traditional modes of social control are used and

the mechanism established by the existing law either by passed or made to conform with

the overriding principle of conflict reduction rather than what westerners would consider the

proper application of the law.

Law schools in Thailand do not teach students cases, they have just focus on the statutes,

so the values of teaching and studying is not too much. There a matter between the old

generations and the new ones of lawyers in teaching and learning law. The comparative law

is very important because it offers an overview of legal systems for students.

Due to the globalization, Western thoughts of laws and states conquered Asia-Pacific

countries, and there are more and more western lawyers, professors arrived and teach/

practice in those countries.

82

Indonesia: law schools try to teach every subjects but the content is not deep, so the values

for students is not suitable.

Many countries: we should create more clinics to train our students, especially the legal

ethics.

We should teach some subjects related to the Asia-pacific region as Asia-Pacific

Comparative Laws.

Session 7, 8, 9 and 10: Outline of Outcomes and Inputs for Legal Education

These sessions were robust and engaging. Much discussion and debate occurred to try to

define the outcomes of a legal education. The process began with the following outline

presented in the materials for the workshop.

Time did not permit the transcription of the discussions among the 30 law deans on arriving

at the Statement of Outcomes of a Legal Education which was unanimously adopted by the

workshop at the conclusion of the forum. These discussions are enlightening and we will

attempt to transcribe them for a future edition of these minutes.

Below is the statement adopted at the workshop.

4. Knowledge

A law graduate should know and understand:

iv) the core areas of substantive and procedural law;

v) how laws are created, implemented, and changed; and

vi) the contextual underpinnings of the operation of law (both domestically and

globally).

5. Skills

A law graduate should be proficient in:

v) general academic skills, including critical analysis and reasoning;

vi) reading and analyzing legal materials;

vii) planning, strategizing and complying with legal requirements; and

viii) effectively communicating within a legal context [orally and] in writing.

6. Values

A law graduate should understand and act in accordance with:

83

iii) the professional ethics and values of the jurisdiction; and

iv) the fundamental principles of justice and the rule of law.

Documents

2nd Annual African Law Deans’ Forum...4 Agenda 2013 African Regional Deans’ Forum Law School Leadership in the 21st Century: Meeting the Global Challenge University of Nigeria