Should Law Professors Have a Continuing Practice Experience (CPE) Requirement?
Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law
October 19, 2012
6 N.E. U. L.J. 131 (2013)
Drexel University Earle Mack School of Law Research Paper No. 2012-A-04
This article considers whether law professors should have a Continuing Practice Experience (CPE) requirement, just as lawyers in most jurisdictions have a Continuing Legal Education (CLE) requirement. In the face of criticisms of legal education for failing to prepare students to be practicing lawyers and for generating scholarship that is of little to no use to practicing lawyers and judges, CPE offers one way to facilitate a connection between legal education and law practice. This article considers the potential benefits of CPE (and reasons why law professors might be resistant to CPE). The article also discusses ways in which the American Bar Association’s Standards for the Accreditation of Law Schools and the Association of American Law Schools’ Statement of Good Practices by Law Professors could be revised to adopt (or, at least, endorse) CPE. Finally, the article addresses two questions relating to the development of a CPE requirement: specifically, what types of activity should “count” as CPE and how much of such activity should law professors have to engage in?
Number of Pages in PDF File: 31
Keywords: Continuing Practice Experience, CPE, Continuing Legal Education, CLE, Standards for the Accreditation of Law Schools, Statement of Good Practices by Law Professors, law professors, legal education, law practiceAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: April 19, 2014
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.438 seconds