Short abstracts of the presentations were submitted by many of the speakers in advance of the conference. The titles of those that were submitted are underlined; to view those abstracts, click on the title.

Title: The Taxonomy Of Clinics: An Interactive Session Exploring The Risks And Realities Of All Forms Of CLE

Lead Presenter: Rachel Ann Dunn



Session Abstract: This presentation aims to discuss the different types of clinical legal education(CLE), whilst also collecting data for my PhD. It explores the different kinds of CLE, or the ‘taxonomy,' accompanied by a diagram/scale I have designed which rates them by risk and reality. When talking about risk it is referring to the risk to potential clients using the service, individual clinicians and the entire clinic. This is risk of legal misconduct and reputation rather than sustainability issues which risk the closure of a clinic. Reality is measured from the least realistic representation of practice to the most realistic. On my scale, whether reality or risk, problem based learning(PBL) is at the lower end of the scale and live client clinics(LCCs) are at the highest. In between are policy projects, street law, simulations, advice only clinics and externships. My PhD focuses on LCCs, attempting to explore the evidence that they better prepare students for practice (Grimes, 1998, p.66) and create more competent lawyers than a standard legal education does. Thus, this scale helps me to explain why I have chosen to focus on LCCs rather than other forms of CLE. The session will start with an explanation of the diagram and why I have placed types CLE in certain places and how this relates to risk and reality. Many different institutions, from a worldwide perspective, have different forms of CLE incorporated into their teaching to enhance the legal education experience and produce more competent lawyers (Antoniou and Hassan-Morlai, 2014). Whilst they may entail different characteristics and methods, they can all fit into one of the descriptions in my diagram. During the explanation I will consider what skills are gained through each kind of CLE, displaying further why I have placed them as they are. The interactive, data collecting, part of this presentation will involve those attending, who will be consented as the presentation starts, to use the same scale/diagram and place CLE where they think appropriate, once for the risks involved in CLE and once for the reality. This will be filmed to record any changes and any interesting discussions about why a participant places a certain type of CLE in a particular place on the scale. It is expected that results of the participants will differ from the diagram I have designed, due to differing CLE experiences and teaching methods. Not only will this be beneficial for my PhD but it will also be beneficial for the audience, to discuss different types of CLE and what they prefer to teach and use, sharing ideas and experiences. Furthermore, I want participants to discuss what skills they believe are gained from each CLE experience, and which CLE provides the best forum for those skills. The data that is collected will be written up into the publication, in order for those who participated to see the results and my conclusions. ANTONIOU, N. & HASSAN-MORLAI, P. 2014. Live Client Clinics: Bridging the Gap. International Journal of Clinical Legal Education, 21. BLEASDALE-HILL, L. A. & WRAGG, P. 2013. Models of Clinic and Their Value to Students, Universities and the Community in the post-2012 Fees Era. International Journal of Clinical Legal Education, 19, 257-270. GRIMES, R. 1998. Locating the Clinic within the Curriculum - Thoughts from Home and Abroad. Griffith Law Review, 7, 62-78.

Session Material:

No material uploaded.

See full list of abstracts here.