Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1628117
 


 



The Status of Clinical Faculty in the Legal Academy:
Report of the Task Force on the Status of Clinicians and the Legal Academy


Bryan L. Adamson


Seattle University School of Law

Calvin G. C. Pang


University of Hawaii at Manoa - William S. Richardson School of Law

Bradford Colbert


William Mitchell College of Law

Kathy Hessler


affiliation not provided to SSRN

Katherine R. Kruse


Hamline University - School of Law

Robert R. Kuehn


Washington University in Saint Louis - School of Law

Mary Helen McNeal


Syracuse University College of Law

David A. Santacroce


University of Michigan Law School

March 1, 2010

Washington University in St. Louis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-06-07

Abstract:     
In the midst of ongoing debates within the legal academy and the American Bar Association on the need for "practice-ready" law school graduates through enhanced attention to law clinics and externships and on the status of faculty teaching in those courses, this report identifies and evaluates the most appropriate modes for clinical faculty appointments. Drawing on data collected through a survey of clinical program directors and faculty, the report analyzes the five most identifiable clinical faculty models: unitary tenure track; clinical tenure track; long-term contract; short-term contract; and clinical fellowships. It determines that, despite great strides in the growth of clinical legal education in the last 30 years, equality between clinical and non-clinical faculty remains elusive. Clinical faculty still lag behind non-clinical faculty in security of position and governance rights at most law schools.

The report then identifies four core principles that should guide decisions about clinical faculty appointments: 1) clinical education is a foundational and essential component of legal education; 2) the legal academy and profession benefit from full inclusion of clinical faculty on all matters affecting the mission, function, and direction of law schools; 3) there is no justification for creating hierarchies between clinical and non-clinical faculty; and 4) the standards for hiring, retention, and promotion of clinical faculty must recognize and value the responsibilities and methodologies of clinical teaching.

The report concludes that these core principles are best realized when full-time clinical faculty are appointed to a unitary tenure track. This conclusion does not ignore the imperfections of a tenure system. However, to the extent that tenure remains the strongest measure of the legal academy's investment in its faculty and is the surest guarantee of academic freedom, inclusion in faculty governance and job security, the report recommends that law schools predominantly place their clinical faculty on dedicated tenure lines. In addition, it recommends that schools implement standards for hiring, promotion, and retention that reflect the teaching responsibilities and methodologies, as well as practice and service obligations, unique to their clinical faculty. To facilitate the development of such standards, the report suggests good practices for the appointment of clinical faculty on a unitary tenure track.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 63

Keywords: Law Schools, Legal Academy, Clinical Faculty, Law Clinics, Externships, Legal Education, Clinical Legal Education

working papers series


Download This Paper

Date posted: June 22, 2010 ; Last revised: October 4, 2012

Suggested Citation

Adamson, Bryan L. and Pang, Calvin G. C. and Colbert, Bradford and Hessler, Kathy and Kruse, Katherine R. and Kuehn, Robert R. and McNeal, Mary Helen and Santacroce, David A., The Status of Clinical Faculty in the Legal Academy: Report of the Task Force on the Status of Clinicians and the Legal Academy (March 1, 2010). Washington University in St. Louis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-06-07. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1628117 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1628117

Contact Information

Bryan L. Adamson (Contact Author)
Seattle University School of Law ( email )
901 12th Avenue, Sullivan Hall
P.O. Box 222000
Seattle, WA n/a 98122-1090
United States

Calvin G. C. Pang
University of Hawaii at Manoa - William S. Richardson School of Law ( email )
2515 Dole Street
Honolulu, HI 96822
United States
Bradford Colbert
William Mitchell College of Law ( email )
875 Summit Ave
St. Paul, MN 55105-3076
United States
651.290.6413 (Phone)
651.290.6407 (Fax)
Kathy Hessler
affiliation not provided to SSRN ( email )
Kate Kruse
Hamline University - School of Law ( email )
1536 Hewitt Avenue
Saint Paul, MN 55104-1237
United States
651-523-2472 (Phone)
Robert R. Kuehn
Washington University in Saint Louis - School of Law ( email )
Campus Box 1120
One Brookings Drive
St. Louis, MO 63130-4899
United States
314-935-5706 (Phone)
314-935-5356 (Fax)
Mary Helen McNeal
Syracuse University College of Law ( email )
David Santacroce
University of Michigan Law School ( email )
625 South State Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215
United States
734 763 4319 (Phone)
734 764 4702 (Fax)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,015
Downloads: 248
Download Rank: 70,107

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo6 in 0.328 seconds