Digital Directions

National Law Students Forum 2011

Following the successful pilot event (read the blog post here) in Manchester in November 2010, UKCLE staged a follow up National Law Students Forum in Birmingham in June 2011. The event was attended by 50 nominated law student representatives from university law schools throughout England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, including some who had attended in November 2010. UKCLE was greatly assisted in this venture by a small group of students and academics who had formed a steering group after the November event.

The full report on the event can be accessed on the UKCLE Student Forum website.

Day 1

The event began with Sefton Bloxham, the event organiser, indicating the key issues (identified from feedback from the previous event) that would be addressed and ending by identifying three key themes for the event – engagement, empowerment and enjoyment! This was followed by an unforgettable ‘icebreaker’ session led by Rebecca Huxley-Binns (Nottingham Trent University), which set the tone for the remainder of the event.

After lunch, there were two parallel sessions. Victoria Passant (NUS Student Engagement Officer) talked about student engagement from an NUS perspective, encouraging students to get involved in local projects, and Linda Graham (Student Development Officer, University of Northumbria) talked about approaches to peer mentoring. Linda had participants sharing examples of good practice via a ‘brick in the wall’ display which remained on show for the duration of the event.

The parallel sessions were followed by an interactive session on mooting and communication skills, led by Rebecca Huxley-Binns, at which participants were able to exchange ideas on all aspects of mooting from organisation of competitions to advocacy skills for mooting.

Day 2

The second morning began with a session, led by Sefton Bloxham, on shared student experiences of legal education. Discussion took place in small groups on issues of concern to students. A number of issues had been identified though responses to a questionnaire issued in advance of the event, but on the day each group was left to determine its own topic. Interestingly, most groups opted to talk with some passion about how to improve informal communications with law staff.

This was followed by a presentation on LLB student perceptions of assessment and feedback: Lessons from the National Students’ Survey by Lisa Webley (University of Westminster) which provoked further questions and discussion. After a break , there followed two more parallel sessions. Ben Fitzpatrick (University of York) led a participatory session on problem-based learning, drawing on his experience of developing the law programme at York, during which groups of students were confronted with a problem and asked to identify the legal issues involved. And Michael Bromby (Glasgow Caledonian University) spoke about simulated learning, introducing students to a range of ways in which simulations have been used within legal education, prompting some very interesting discussion around the respective merits of online and/or ‘real’ simulations. Michael was also tweeting throughout the event, updating followers and engaging with presenters and participants.

Planning for the future

After lunch, and much anticipation, Sefton Bloxham reminded participants of the question he had asked on the first morning – why are you all here? He stressed that if the Forum was to continue then it was in the hands of those present to grasp the nettle and establish an organisation for the future. Sefton introduced Clare Weaver (Oxford University Press) and Tom Laidlaw (LexisNexis), both of whom had been in attendance throughout the event. Both Clare and Tom welcomed the development of a student forum and indicated that both publishers may be willing to offer some form of financial support in the future. At this point, Sefton announced, to some looks of horror, that the presenters, facilitators and potential sponsors would be leaving the room and the student participants were to be left to form a new steering group/committee and establish an action plan for the future.

UKCLE has no record of what happened during the next hour or so, other than the fact that it was noisy, but at various stages individuals emerged for refreshment, reporting that “it’s getting a bit chaotic” and “it’s a bit like Lord of the Flies in there”. Finally, after about 90 minutes, the doors opened and the presenters were informed that “a committee has been formed”! There followed a brief plenary session in which the new committee identified themselves and pledged to set up a discussion forum for participants to continue the discussion of the key issues – a name, objectives, membership, structure, future activities, sustainability (resourcing). That discussion forum was set up the same evening and all participants at the event are encouraged to contribute to the discussion which will determine the future shape of the new organisation.

  The committee are:

• Nneka Agada (University of Hertfordshire)
• David Bannister (Anglia Ruskin University)
• John Bell (De Montfort University)
• Wade Clifton (University of Central Lancashire)
• Gabriella D’Isidoro (University of Salford)
• Phillip Jones (University of Glamorgan)
• Joshua Lintern (University of Plymouth)
• Dominika Malinowska (University of Bradford)
• Lauren Mercer (University of Exeter)
• Jeanette Mooney (Manchester Metropolitan University)
• Peter Shandley (University of Leicester)
• Elle Yates (Coventry University)

In summary

This was a highly successful event which appears to have been enjoyed by all participants and which has produced an outcome that exceeds the expectations of the organisers. UKCLE is confident that the new committee will succeed in establishing a new, independent, law student network which will, in time, be able to act as a ‘student voice’ for all law students.

Student Essay Competition - Highly Commended

UKCLE’s student essay competitions (part of the Higher Education Academy’s Student Awards) attract interest from around the UK. We have held seven competitions to date and previous winning essays can be accessed through the UKCLE website.

Congratulations to the winners of the 2011 competition writing on "Is the law degree fit for purpose?"

Over 40 essays were submitted and entries were of a high standard, and this year's highly commended award goes to Matthew McGhee from Magdalen College, University of Oxford. Read Matthew’s essay below:

2011 highly commended

Is the law degree fit for purpose?

Matthew McGhee (Magdalen College, University of Oxford)

---

The premise of the question seems simple. The answer is, however, necessarily complicated, largely as a result of the multiplicity of meanings that one might attribute to the question. To establish whether the law degree is fit for purpose one must consider what the purpose of that degree might be. To risk introducing circularity, presumably the purpose is to train undergraduates to think like a lawyer. It is at this preliminary and fundamental stage that divergences of opinion occur. Does this make the aim to teach what the law is or is it to teach why it is the way that it is? This distinction is evident from a cursory look at two of the leading law degrees; LSE publicly state that they are black letter lawyers and concentrate on the words in statutes and cases to discover what rule applies where. The Oxford degree, on the other hand, has a very different outlook and encourages the development of an intuitive sense of the principles that form the basis of English law in an almost philosophical approach.

The more one considers the question, the more it opens itself to further interpretations. One is reminded of a Russian doll; if a crack is found and pried at, the doll opens up to reveal a different doll inside, with this process being repeated. To answer the question posed, one pries at its meaning only to find that a condition precedent to the answering of that question is the answering of a question to clarify the meaning of the first question! The doll inside the question of what it means to say that a law degree trains the undergraduate to think like a lawyer is what sort of lawyer is one envisaging? An academic lawyer or a practicing lawyer? And should a distinction be drawn between the judge and the advocate (both being practicing lawyers)? It seems that the shorter and more simple sounding the question, the greater its remit through unspoken assumptions giving rise to various permutations.

However, leaving to one side the complexities of the hidden meanings lurking behind the question, one might base an answer on the common view of the law degree as being a step on the way to the law as a vocation. Whether one chooses the path of a solicitor or a barrister, there are further steps to take beyond the qualifying law degree in the form of vocational courses. This may be compared with other jurisdictions where a law degree allows the graduate to commence practice without the need for further studies, an example being the Juris Doctor (JD) in the USA, though admittedly this is a postgraduate degree. Is this a failing of the UK law degree to fulfil its purpose in the sense that it does not adequately prepare its graduates for practice, as evidenced by the requirement for further training? One rather suspects not for two reasons. First, it is not possible that one course can teach a student all that one needs to know to be a successful practicing lawyer – a criticism of the BPTC (formerly BVC) is that it purports to train individuals in certain skills that are arguably best learnt through practice. This leads to the second reason, which is that learning how to practice effectively is a continual process and, whilst not wishing to descend into clichés, the adage that ‘you learn something new every day’ seems here to be particularly apt.

An issue that one must address is that one might have two lawyers who are equally successful in practice and are in all ways identical, except that one read a traditional law degree whilst the other took the Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL). Does the very fact that there may be no difference between them show that the law degree is inefficient for the purpose that the common view attributes to a law degree, namely creating lawyers? This may seem to be the case if one looks exclusively at the GDL in comparison with the law degree – if one can do in one year what a law degree does in three years, with there being no difference between the two routes when it comes to practice, then it surely shows that the law degree is inefficient? However, this is only the case if one misrepresents the situation. If one is to judge efficiency by the timescale of the route, then one must take account of the fact that a precondition to the GDL is that one already holds an undergraduate degree. The simple reason for this is that whilst the GDL teaches how the law applies to a given scenario, it does not encourage the same incisive way of thinking that is required in practice in addition to a working knowledge of the law. Thus it would seem that the law degree is actually the more efficient route.

This highlights the error in the assumption that the function of a law degree is just to place its graduates one step closer to a legal career. The purpose of the law degree is not simply to manufacture lawyers. The proper purpose of a law degree is to allow its students to develop a sophistication of thought. That the law degree also fulfils the other precondition to commencing legal practice by imparting the requisite working knowledge in no way diminishes the relevance and value of the pursuit of intellectual betterment for its own sake, a purpose performed admirably by the law degree.

As a postscript to this discussion, that the natural inclination is to answer this question by asking whether the law degree adequately prepares its graduates for legal practice reflects on the national attitude – partly incited by successive governments – that one should undertake various projects and treat those projects simply as stepping stones, rather than enjoying the undertaking for its own considerable merits. This is somewhat ironic given the number of ministers in government who have done the law degree themselves, yet are evidently not in practice.

New College of Humanities: Legal Education, Science and Ethics

Having watched the recent unveiling of the New College of Humanities, and much discussion and debate surrounding this event, I felt moved to point out, echo and elaborate on some of Richard Moorhead's blog comments on Lawyer Watch.

Indeed, offering a law degree based upon the University of London's International Programme (previously known as the London External) is not exactly innovative, which Julian Webb expands upon in his blog hEaD SPACE.

Where favourable comment may be passed is the combining of the traditional academic subject-based study with a broader curriculum from a core 'professional skills' module and three other core modules:

• Logic and Critical Thinking
• Science Literacy
• Applied Ethics

These additional modules appear to be core throughout all NCH's programmes: it is vague as to whether these modules will be tailored towards the study of law, or more generic in their approach.  If they are subject-oriented then perhaps they do not provide a wider, more liberal educational aspect and differ little from the types of options and electives available in many other institutions.  If they are truely generic, then perhaps cross-fertilisation between disciplines can be achieved.

Legal Ethics is likely to enter into the curriculum for England and Wales, as Richard points out, so the study of applied ethics may well need to enter into the UoL programme as a core module for the qualifying degree.

The study of science, scientific theory and the use of scientific evidence in a legal context has already been well explored by the legal education community.  Indeed, previous blog posts have evaluated and the 'law and forensic science education in the 21st century’ event supported jointly by UKCLE and the Physical Sciences Centre.

Going as far back as 2008, Carole McCartney and I explored the prior knowledge of law undergraduates and their likely understanding of scientific theory in our survey of science-based A levels / Highers.  Whilst NCH may be attracting the A* student, they may not have a good grounding in science to start.

Logic and Critical Thinking: I've yet to find an LLB programme that does not address these skills both pervasively and directly in the curriculum.

It will be interesting to see if their success is based upon 'smells like Oxbridge' where fees appear to equate to quality; or whether the creation of a new institution will allow greater emphasis to be placed upon learning and teaching, which is sold as the old-fashioned type rather than the adoption of cutting-edge innovation.

Student Essay Competition - Runner up

UKCLE’s student essay competitions (part of the Higher Education Academy’s Student Awards) attract interest from around the UK. We have held seven competitions to date and previous winning essays can be accessed through the UKCLE website.

Congratulations to the winners of the 2011 competition writing on "Is the law degree fit for purpose?"

Over 40 essays were submitted and entries were of a high standard, and this year's Runner up was Sitanta Ni Mathghamhna from Birkbeck College, University of London. Read Sitanta’s essay below:

2011 runner up

Is the law degree fit for purpose?

Sitanta Ni Mathghamhna (Birkbeck College, University of London)

---

To determine whether the law degree is fit for purpose, one must first ascertain its purpose. Is it to provide a liberal education, the ‘’advancement of a particular disposition towards life, involving the acquisition both of knowledge, but also a particular habit of mind’’¹, or is it to equip students with a training which will enable an effective transition to the practice of law? Or indeed, a combination of both?

The undergraduate law degree (LLB) is first and foremost an academic qualification; postgraduate training must be undertaken before practice, for which the degree provides a foundation. Taking this into consideration as well as the fact that only 45% of students who enrol on the LLB end up practicing² it would seem that, even factoring in the fierce competition for training contracts and pupillages, a significant proportion of students undertaking the degree do so for purposes other than practising as a solicitor or barrister. Perhaps with the differing ambitions of law students in mind, the 1996 report of the Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Legal Education Conduct (ACLEC) recommended the retention of “independent liberal education in the discipline of law, not tied to any specific vocation”. Therefore the LLB has a dual mandate – while its primary purpose is academic, it must also provide an adequate basis for effective transition to the professional stage of training for those students wishing to practice. With this duality in mind, the question then becomes ‘does the LLB fulfil the criteria of academic education?’ And furthermore, ‘would the expansion of the LLB to incorporate a vocational as well as an academic element render the degree more fit for purpose for those students wishing to practice?’

In answer to the first question it is my contention that the LLB does fulfil the criteria of academic education; undertaking a law degree is challenging, requiring precision of thought, excellent analytical skills and a heightened facility for succinct written and oral expression. Indeed when the Socratic Method of legal argument is employed, attempting to draw from students a combination of critical analysis and information, it gets to the very heart of the meaning of the verb ‘educate’, which has its roots in Latin, ‘to bring out’. The rigorous training, which is sufficiently demanding that less than 7% of law students receive first class degrees, compared with 14% of degree students in the UK overall³, is broad enough in scope to provide grounding for employment in a wide variety of disciplines, giving those 65% of students who don’t go on to practice an excellent foundation for further study or work in non-law related areas.

However there are viable alternative routes into the profession, such as the Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL), a one year conversion course for non-law graduates in England and Wales. So why study the LLB if you can use any degree as a foundation for the GDL? Whilst many other degrees, especially language and science degrees for those wishing to practice intellectual property (IP) law, equip students with skill sets invaluable in a legal setting, the skills mentioned above which the LLB inculcates comprise a core component of the proficiencies necessary for successful practice within the profession. Additionally opting for the LLB over another academic discipline followed by the GDL negates the need to spend an additional, expensive, year in education.

In answer to the second question; should the LLB incorporate a vocational element, with students qualifying for practice upon the completion of the LLB, as is the case in certain jurisdictions? This would bypass the requirement for costly postgraduate training, as well as the need to secure that most elusive of creatures, the training contract / pupillage. Initial figures might suggest so, given the surfeit of law graduates and the marked lack of such legal apprenticeships available to instruct them. Indeed the United Kingdom has such an excess of lawyers that the Law Society of England & Wales launched a campaign during the summer of 2009 to warn students about the potential drawbacks of a legal career. Statistics bear out these concerns, with a total of 9,337 students enrolled on the legal practice course (LPC) and only 5,809 training contracts available⁴. Figures for the Bar are even worse; each year an estimated 4,000 would-be barristers compete for a paltry 500 pupillage places, prompting Bar Council chairman Nicholas Green QC to recently warn of the “real qualms” he had about a system which encourages Bar Professional Training Course providers to educate increasing numbers of students.

The dissonance between these figures is troubling; no other profession tries to funnel such an inordinate volume of qualified university graduates into such a small professional opening. A proletariat of undergraduates (in Dostoevsky’s words) are now faced with stark choices regarding their tertiary education, as mounting costs deliver diminishing returns. While qualification upon completion of the LLB might relieve the pressures created by the paucity of available pupillages / training contracts, it would also potentially create under-qualified practitioners. Overall the nature of UK legal education, with a clear partition between academic and professional training, is well suited to both the intricacies of the common law system, as well as the differing ambitions of students. Winston Churchill once observed that his early education enabled him to absorb ’’the essential structure of the ordinary British sentence – which is a noble thing.’’⁵ The LLB provides the grammatical foundation of the common law and its relation to society at large, while professional training supplies the vocabulary, in the form of explicit instruction, required to put that learning into practice.

Student Essay Competition 2011

UKCLE’s student essay competitions (part of the Higher Education Academy’s Student Awards) attract interest from around the UK. We have held seven competitions to date and previous winning essays can be accessed through the UKCLE website.

Congratulations to the winners of the 2011 competition writing on "Is the law degree fit for purpose?"

Over 40 essays were submitted and entries were of a high standard, and this year's Winner was Lisa West, a student from Liverpool John Moores University. Read Lisa’s essay below:

2011 winner

Is the law degree fit for purpose?

Lisa West (Liverpool John Moores University)

---

To ask if the law degree is ‘fit for purpose’ is an ambiguous and presumptuous question. Whose purpose and which law degree is being referred to? There are qualifying degrees, exempting students going on to study the LPC and BPTC from an additional year’s study, but likewise there are non-qualifying degrees, and then criminology, criminal justice and other such degrees. All of these are law based and designed for different purposes. If you search for law in the UCAS website, for a course starting in 2011, before you are even given a list of providers you are given 35 options as to what type of law degree you would like to look at; and even if you select “law on its own as a single subject” you are given the choice of 354 different courses¹.

To take a generic LL.B and determine whether it is fit for purpose is still subjective, as each student will come with a different purpose in mind. To demonstrate this I will look at myself and my four housemates, and from there determine if ‘the law degree’ meets their needs.

At this moment in time I am looking to continue to study, before teaching at degree level. For this purpose the degree has allowed me the chance to browse the many areas of law and determine which I prefer. In that sense it has fulfilled its purpose. However, studies have been targeted towards looking at a broad selection of subjects, many of which are compulsory to satisfy the qualifying law degree criteria². To make this degree fit for the purpose of teaching it would need to adopt a broader approach in the first year of study, and to do this by offering a diverse selection of 12 credit modules. This would allow students pursuing academia to narrow down the subjects they take in the second and third years, and in some instances this could lead to a Masters degree or a PhD without the research and worry we now endure in trying to choose which direction to take. As it stands, the LL.B is fit for purpose in the sense that it will suffice for the masses, but will not always meet individual’s needs.

Taking now my first and second housemates, who wish to complete the LPC and BPTC. There has been criticism recently that the LL.B does not fully prepare students for these practical courses, but is that the aim of the undergraduate degree? I assert that the degree should be the foundation of knowledge, and that the practical courses piece together the knowledge and the application of it. Even if one is to disagree with this assertion, there has been a 20% fall in the number of students going on to complete the LPC and as such, proposals to integrate a practical element into the degree should be prevented, as they would only benefit a select group within each cohort³. Suggestions for an entirely separate degree structure for those intending to go on to practice should be dismissed as what would then happen to students who change their minds while on this new degree, or more troublingly, those not on it who would need to be⁴. Therefore, I submit that in providing the necessary knowledge for students to then go on to complete a practical training course, the degree is sufficient and fit for purpose. Those who believe that the undergraduate degree should equally provide a ‘dress rehearsal’ for these courses, however, will always disagree.

My third and fourth housemates took a very different view to their LL.B studies. My third housemate wishes to follow a non-legal path, and took the degree believing it harboured a wide and varied skill set which would put them in a better position than other graduates. My fourth housemate took the LL.B because they wanted to move away from home and, as The Guardian so eloquently puts it, “doss around”⁵. The purpose required by my third housemate, I believe, is the easiest of them all to satisfy. The research, interpretation and analytical skills gained by the study of the LL.B are outstanding, as they are embedded in the undergraduate course⁶. Alongside these skills comes an attention to detail which can only come with time. A student who takes the LL.B for this reason, I assert, is one which knows the value of investing in oneself and ones future. However, the purpose of my fourth housemate is one which is not easily satisfied once one passes the first year of any degree, and is a very poor reason for pursuing the law.

So it appears that the big question is actually what is the point in a LL.B? My opinion is simple; if you ask a cohort of first years in their first lecture what they want to do with their degree the majority will say they aspire to become solicitors and barristers. If you ask again in second year more will say they wish to become solicitors, and when you ask at the beginning of the third year, and after their studies of the dreaded Land Law module, most will not have a clue. The point is that it opens students’ minds to the possibilities and options available to them. The law degree helps us to build skills which will aid us no matter what direction we wish to take after we finish our undergraduate journeys. To tailor degrees to individual purposes would be pointless because we easily change our minds: the majority of students come fresh faced from college or Sixth Form with only a vague idea of where they want to be in five years. So the point? The point of a law degree is to learn about ourselves, our aspirations and futures, what we enjoy and to develop our skills. We just happen to learn the law along the way.

Moving forward: Legal Education in Scotland

UKCLE ran its second day conference designed exclusively for the Scottish legal education community yesterday (15 December 2010), focusing on the challenges and opportunities in a rapidly changing academic and professional environment.

Themes for the event included opening up the LLB curriculum and Professional Education and Training 2 (PEAT 2) collaboration. There were workshop streams on clinical legal education (LLB), Work-based Learning (PEAT 2) and teaching law on non-law curricula.

The first plenary session was given by Julian Webb, UK Centre for Legal Education (UKCLE) who addressed the topic of 'legal education and the legal services market' - reflecting on the changes both north and south of the border  in terms of a changing market in which different business structures may well offer different types of services.  Examples were given of high volume work such as debt recovery or conveyancing which can be semi-automated; or Legal Process Outsourcing (LPO) which can operate for increasingly sophisticated processes.  The Indian market was cited as a high value market for this type of activity.  Julian also addressed the legal education market - raising issues regarding the private sector providers and the widening gap between universities and the profession.

The first parallel session with Donald Nicolson, University of Strathclyde and Dale McFadzean, University of West of Scotland addressed clinical skills at undergraduate level - two very different approaches that feature in-house or external engagement still keep the debate alive as to whether such projects should be client or student oriented.  Either way, the structure and future potential for clinical education will be shaped by this small but growing movement in Scotland.

Alongside this session, Patrick Randolph-Quinney, University Dundee, and Niamh Nic Daeid, University of Strathclyde, began the first session on science and legal education by bringing their perspectives from the fields of both philosophical and applied sciences to illustrate how problems in the presentation of scientific evidence in the legal environment are still being encountered, and how this may be ameliorated by changes to legal education.

After lunch, the second keynote was presented by Liz Campbell and Collette Paterson from The Law Society of Scotland who highlighted the recent changes to the route to qualification - in particular the new PEAT 2 (Professional Education and Training) programme which covers the traineeship period and CPD.  The new framework, which will come into force on 1 November 2011, retains the existing requirement of a minimum of 20 hours each year. To support solicitors in their CPD activities, from 2011 the Society will introduce basic templates, which will be capable of being completed online, to assist with identifying training needs, recording CPD undertaken and evaluating the outcome of the training. In addition, from 2011 a wider range of activities will be acceptable as CPD. These will include activities such as structured and formalised one-to-one training, coaching, and online training, rather than the present narrow definition of group study.

The third parallel session, a workshop led by Jim Moser from Dundas & Wilson and Collette Paterson from The Law Society of Scotland, explored the role of the profession in providing legal education at this new PEAT 2 stage.  Their small groups discussed the barriers and benefits to the new programme and reported back at the closing discussions.  Much debate surrounded the Trainee Continuing Professional Development (TCPD) requirements and how the accreditation of the providers for TCPD would differ from the delivery of CPD to the wider profession.  Many positive and negative aspects were explored and debated, which will be published as a review following the workshop.

The final parallel session led by Michael Bromby, Glasgow Caledonian University, and Fiona Raitt, University of Dundee, built upon the views of the forensic practitioners to explore how science is addressed in the legal curriculum and the role of the law schools to provide a more pervasive approach to underpin a general appreciation of the philosophy of science.  The perceived benefits of co-teaching of law students and science students led to a discussion about the mechanics and benefits of joint delivery of CPD to the professions in order to foster greater links in terms of critical thinking between the two.

New OSCOLA citation guide

OSCOLA is the Oxford Standard for Citation Of Legal Authorities.  It is widely used in law schools and by journal and book publishers in the UK and beyond.

The introduction to the new fourth edition of OSCOLA claims there are two golden rules for the citation of legal authorities: the first is consistency, and the second is consideration for the reader. This updated guide is is designed to facilitate accurate citation of authorities, legislation, and other legal materials.

"OSCOLA was first devised by Professor Peter Birks in 2000, in consultation with law students and faculty at Oxford University, and with Oxford University Press and Hart Publishing. It is used by the Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, and the editors of that journal have also played an important role in its development. Subsequent editions of OSCOLA were produced in 2002 (by Professor Birks) and in 2004 (revised 2006, both by Timothy Endicott and Sandra Meredith). This latest revision of OSCOLA provides more detailed coverage of domestic legal sources, and in particular the treatment of Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish sources has been considerably expanded."

The new guide is also licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.  This makes life much easier for adding the guide (or parts thereof) to programme or module handbooks, VLEs or even printing and distributing the guide to students.

The license permits copying and distribution, but also permits the creation of derivatives subject to:

• Attribution — You must give the original author credit.

  Attribute this work:
  

• Non-Commercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

• Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a licence identical to this one.

This would allow law schools to derive their own referencing guide with some deviation from the Oxford Standard if required.  It would also allow other jurisdictions to tailor a similar guide with more appropriate examples or allowing for whatever variations may exist in the citation of cases or legislation.

There is also a Quick Reference Guide for key reference types and the section on citing international sources from the 2006 edition of OSCOLA is available as a separate document: OSCOLA 2006: Citing International Law.

I also find OSCOLA a great help for non-law students.  For example, my forensic psychology students must use their own subject-based referencing system (APA - American Psychological Association, which is similar to the Harvard method) but this guide illustrates how to reference a case, give pinpoints to quotes and a general appreciation of how cases are reported.

An online tutorial (Citing the Law using OSCOLA) is also available from Cardiff University and a link is given from the Oxford website.  Their Activity: Putting it all together is a great tool for testing students (and staff, I'm sure!)

9th International Journal of Clinical Legal Education Conference

The 9th International Journal of Clinical Legal Education Conference, in partnership with the 6^th Global Alliance for Justice Education (GAJE) Conference will be hosted by The Institute of Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Valencia from 11-12 July 2011 University of Valencia, Spain

Their rather inspired choice of conference theme is: Life, the Universe and Clinic: What questions does Clinic answer?

"I checked it very thoroughly," said the computer, "and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is."

"But it was the Great Question! The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything," howled Loonquawl.

"Yes," said Deep Thought with the air of one who suffers fools gladly, "but what actually is it?"

A slow stupefied silence crept over the men as they stared at the computer and then at each other.

"Well, you know, it's just Everything ... Everything ..." offered Phouchg weakly.

"Exactly!" said Deep Thought. "So once you know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means."

Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy

Themes of the Conference

We expect a lot from clinical legal education.  At the same time it is expected to achieve or encourage professional skills development, ethical awareness, deep legal knowledge, collaborative and lifelong learning, reflective practice, social justice activism and a host of other ambitious objectives.  Recent years have seen increased and at times conflicting demands placed on clinics by institutions, by students and by clients and there is rarely an opportunity to pause and re-examine the nature and value of the clinical enterprise, the scope of its aspiration and the path ahead. 

This conference will offer participants a chance to ask questions and seek to articulate answers about the purpose(s) of clinical legal education.  Papers will explore the educational, socio-economic and political contexts of clinic, the opportunities for achieving more and the pedagogic and other limitations that clinic faces.  If clinical learning is not the answer to life the universe and everything the conference will address what it can and should realistically be expected to achieve. 

This year’s particular conference themes include:

• The purposes and rationales of clinical legal education
• What clinical legal education can and cannot achieve
• Questions clinicians should ask themselves
• Clinic and professional development: skills, knowledge, ethics, professionalism
• Clinic and lifelong learning: collaboration, teamwork, reflection
• Clinic and personal development: experience, interpersonal skills, emotional intelligence, maturity
• Clinic and social justice: public legal education, community projects, legal aid schemes, pro bono public, balancing client and student needs
• Clinic and the law curriculum: the learning outcomes of clinic, relationship to other learning methods, clinic and curriculum coverage, curricular innovation, simulated experience, intra or extra-curricular activities
• Clinical collaboration: cross disciplinary initiatives, cross jurisdictional partnerships, barriers to collaboration

Papers are also welcome in relation to standing conference themes:

• Internationalising clinical legal education
• Clinic twinning projects
• Clinical scholarship
• Reporting research findings (final or interim)
• Assessment /grading of clinical legal education
• Evidencing best practice
• New clinics and new clinicians
• Review of clinic operations
• Student and faculty attitudes to clinical learning

 Conference overview and partners

The annual IJCLE conference serves as a unique forum in which clinical educators from all jurisdictions can come together to discuss all aspects of clinical teaching and learning, to learn from one another and to share best practice.  This year’s conference addresses fundamental questions about the place of clinical legal education in higher education and legal service provision.

In 2011 the conference will be held in partnership with the 6^th Global Alliance for Justice Education Conference (GAJE) 12-15 July.  The theme of the GAJE conference is “Combatting Social Injustice Through Justice Education”.  The conferences will be held consecutively with some joint sessions so as to bring together delegates with a very wide range of interests but to enable each conference to retain its unique identity and character. 

GAJE is an alliance of persons committed to achieving justice through education. Clinical education of law students is a key component of justice education, but GAJE also works to advance other forms of socially relevant legal education, which includes education of practising lawyers, judges, non-governmental organizations and the lay public.

See www.gaje.org for further information about the GAJE conference.  Discounted rates are available for delegates booking both conferences.  

The Institute for Human Rights at the University of Valencia (IUDHUV) is a research unit within the Law Faculty.  It offers courses on human rights, law, and international protection of rights and participates actively in post-graduate courses and organizes practicum for its students in the field of human rights.  It also serves as the host unit for the pioneer legal clinic focusing on international protection of human rights.  More information is available at: www.uv.es/idh/.

More details will be available soon at the conference website: www.ijcle.com.

Commonwealth Conferences

The Commonweath Legal Education Association's biennial conference for 2011 will be in Bangalore, India running from 29-30th January 2011.  Their theme is "More Meaningful Legal Education in the 21st Century - Stepping out of the Ivory Tower".

Conference Topics may include:
• Consolidating National Legal Education Beyond the Profession
• Expanding Legal education in accordance with the demands of the global village.
• Internationalization of Legal Education and Research Activities
• In-sourcing the Technology-rich Knowledge Economy into Advanced Legal Education for
Maintaining High Standards
• Regulatory Models in Legal Education : Issues and Concerns
• Promoting Partnerships of Law Educators and Professionals
• The Role of Institutions Imparting Legal Education in Enhancing Professionalism and
Standards for the Value-based Conduct of Lawyers
• Teaching Legal literacy in the Commonwealth: The Role of Universities and Law Schools
• The Role of Commonwealth Universities and Law Schools in preparing Law students for
Legal Practice

Organised in association with the National Law School of India University, the submission of abstracts for the conference is open and has been extended until 10th December 2010.

The 17^th Commonwealth Law Conference is also taking place in Hyderabad, India from 5-9th February 2011 which will also host the 12th Commonwealth Moot, the international student competition.

The Conference will be addressed by the Chief Justices & Judges of Commonwealth jurisdictions, including Canada, Caribbean, UK, Africa, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia & New Zealand.

The theme of the conference is ‘Emerging  Economies and the Rule of Law: Challenges & opportunities’. The subjects discussed during the Conference amongst others will be Human Rights & Rule of Law; Corporate & Commercial Law; Federalism; Free & Fair Elections; Judicial Independence & Accountability.

National Law Student Forum

Yesterday, UKCLE launched its National Law Student Forum initiative with a pilot 36 hour event for invited law student representatives. The event aims were to:

• demonstrate how students can actively develop their contribution to the learnin  g process
• increase the students’ skills base, e.g. from note taking in meetings and preparing reports to committees to communication and negotiation skills
• set up a network for law students
• increase the students awareness of approaches to learning & teaching

The event was facilitated by Patricia McKellar and Michael Bromby (UKCLE) and Adam Mannis (UKCME) from another HEA subject centre which has been running student-oriented events since 2001.  Guest speakers included Ant Bagshaw, National Union for Students (NUS) and Rebecca Huxley-Binns, Law Teacher of the Year Winner 2010.

The success of the event was largely due to the students who attended!  All UK law schools were invited to nominate a delegate who could represent their students - some attendees were class/year/school reps, others were law society presidents or had other similar roles - and 20 were invited on a first-come first-served basis.  A range of second and third years attended from a range of institutions representing most geographic areas and types of law schools ranging from the well established to newly created LLB providers.

The staff running the event were extremely impressed at how quickly the delegates came together, socialised and integrated into a very productive group, having never met each other before.  Clearly their roles as student representatives and the common ground of studying the same discipline helped to facilitate this cohesion.

During the event, students worked in teams to identify issues, solve problems, and share best practice and experiences with each other.  Some of their outputs, ideas and suggestions will be reworked into posters, photo albums and short video clips which will be uploaded in due course.

Participating students will be producing a report containing what they have learned from the event for their home institution.  UKCLE will be collating, evaluating and disseminating these reports and the  process ourselves to take the initiative forward.