Ryerson – Law and Innovation 2

6 months from now, I will be wrapping up my time in law school and preparing to bravely enter the legal profession. As I think about this, one question unduly crosses my mind: Am I ready? Has law school truly prepared me to be the best practicing lawyer that I can be? Perhaps it has, and I just haven’t realized it yet. Or, maybe it hasn’t, and this is due, in part, to the lack of hands-on experiential learning that exists in traditional law schools.

My answer to this question is: No, I do not feel as ready as I probably should feel after almost three years of legal education.

Why might that be the case? In my opinion, and based on the numerous discussions we have had in L21C, there seems to be a significant gap between what is taught in law school, and the actual practice of law as it exists today. There is more to the practice than simply knowing what the law is and applying it to a legal problem. Essentially, this is already taught in law school, and it is reflected in how our understanding of law is evaluated when we write 100% final examinations. But what about the skills required for interviewing an emotional and frustrated client? Or the skills required for building strong, lasting relationships with clients, and fellow lawyers? More importantly, what about the skills and competencies required to succeed in a world in which lawyering is rapidly changing with innovation, the utilization of technology and the provision of legal services in general. Should we really be learning all of these skills and competencies after graduation? No, we should not! Personally, I would definitely feel more prepared to enter the legal profession if law school offered more hands-on learning and practical experiences.

Recent legal discussion has focused on the transformational changes that are occurring in the legal profession, and how changes to the content of legal education may address this gap between what is taught in law school and how lawyers actually practice. Not only that, if lawyers are going to meet the needs of the 21^st century, there is no better way than to start from transforming legal education, and how we train our future lawyers. I strongly believe that incorporating a practical component to legal curriculums and programs across Canada may be a viable solution. With that being said, I believe that Ryerson University’s proposal to open a “different law school” is a great idea for the following reasons.

1. It would provide more opportunities for hands-on learning.

The idea of having a mandatory placement or practicum component added to the legal program seems promising. This would definitely give law students an excellent opportunity to work in the legal profession under the supervision of a practicing lawyer. Having this exposure before graduation would prove useful to those students who may have no idea what it means to actually practice in the field. Moreover, it would help law students network, build relationships with other professionals (not just legal professionals), and develop their practical skills.

2. It would produce practice-ready legal professionals.

Having practical experience would produce law graduates that feel confident in their skills and abilities as new entrants in the legal profession. Law graduates need to be prepared to enter into a workforce that is progressively changing with new advances in technology. They should be informed of how these new innovations can benefit (or hinder) their practice as they prepare to provide legal services. For this reason, Ryerson’s strong emphasis on the use of technology, both as a tool for education and as a tool for future success, will be an asset to law graduates.

3. New competencies would be taught.

Traditional law schools already teach us how to be analytical thinkers, problem solvers, legal researchers, and good communicators. Ryerson’s proposed legal curriculum would also teach students competencies required for the future. Some competencies listed in the school’s Letter of Intent include: emotional intelligence, entrepreneurial spirit, network building and technological proficiency. These highly transferable competencies would ensure that future law graduates are career-ready and capable of adapting to changing societal expectations. Students may even feel encouraged to explore unconventional career options, practice in a legal area that is novel or respond to unmet legal needs by promoting access to justice.

I know Ryerson’s proposal to open a new law school in Canada has been the subject matter of an interesting and heated debate. However, after reading Ryerson’s Letter of Intent, I appreciate that what the school is trying to do is prepare students to become “practice-ready professionals with knowledge and transferable skills required to compete in a rapidly changing profession.” In my opinion, transforming the way we teach and train future lawyers is exactly the kind of change we need if we are going to keep up with the shifting legal profession, and the 21^st century.

Ryerson University in Toronto is developing a proposal to create a new JD program “that focuses on innovation in legal education for the benefit of graduates, their communities, and the broader society.” That quotation comes from Ryerson’s Letter of Intent, available here. It makes fascinating reading. Compared to the traditional law curriculum, it is a profound re-think of what training lawyers is all about, with emphasis on producing “graduates who possess the initiative to respond to unmet legal needs, who exhibit a commitment to social engagement and community leadership, who are able to envision new applications of their education.” Obviously I like these ideas; in a smaller way, the same ones are reflected in L21C. (On the other hand, I’ve seen the LOI described as “buzzword bingo” – I don’t really agree but I still think it’s funny.)

We’ve had an interesting debate on our internal course site (Mattermost) about this. With the permission of those who contributed, I’ve moved it here so that it can be read more widely.

I hope others, in L21C and beyond, will add their thoughts.

Me: this is the letter of intent outlining Ryerson’s proposal to open a law school. I’d be very interested to know what you think of this. I expect that many of you will share the views of skeptics who have pointed out the shortage of articling positions in Ontario (and generally), and questioned whether Toronto needs another law school. Personally, I’m very persuaded by the argument that there is a need in society for a different kind of law school, one that uses innovative approaches to build skills and provide hands-on experience, focused on the needs of the users of legal services. I think it will be challenging to turn that aspiration into real results, but Ryerson has already shown real leadership in legal training, and they might just pull it off. Chris Bentley is one of our guest speakers, so you will have a chance to talk to him about it.

Lorna: The job market being what it is, they’d only be doing their students a disservice to start running a program and graduating people out into the employment void. If it is the case that they will provide the kind of training that’ll comes from articling, and where a good part of the curriculum is aimed toward alternative careers in law, then it could be quite promising.

Me: think they have thought very carefully about the argument that Ontario doesn’t need another law school and that they will be adding more people to a saturated job market. Those are serious concerns. In my opinion the proposal has serious, convincing answers to them. One of the answers – and I find this very compelling – is that there is clearly a huge need for more lawyers, if you look at it not from the point of view of law firm hiring stats but at social need. Ontario’s population has doubled in the last 30 years, but only one new law school has been added in that time. Most people who experience legal problems don’t get help from a lawyer because they can’t afford it. If something is too expensive for those who need it to access it, that suggests an undersupply, not an oversupply. Of course it does nothing to fix this problem if you create another law school like all the others that trains lawyers in a way that fails to bridge the gap. But I think Ryerson has genuinely considered how to do that and has come up with a well designed, well considered plan. A couple of other points mentioned in the report: there are high numbers of Canadian students training in law schools overseas (US, UK, Australia) who come back into the market here, and would train in this country if there were places for them, so to that extent opening a new school doesn’t increase the supply of law graduates. And, last point, as Omar Ha-Redeye says in this Slaw post, Ryerson aims to prepare law graduates who will create the jobs for graduates of other law schools.

Anita: I think it is a great idea but only if the program satisfies the articling requirement and if the tuition is not too high. I feel that one of the greatest barriers to new graduates who may want to practice differently from the traditional models is that there are very few articling positions with firms who don’t run with the traditional model and so if we do find an articling position, it will most likely be one with a traditional model. Articling with a firm steeped in the traditional mode of practice arguably instills that model in the articling student. Furthermore, a heavy debt load after graduation would prevent a recent graduate from taking riskier paths for fear of unpredictable financial returns. At least that is how I feel when looking for ways to practice law differently in my own career.

Tag: Ryerson

Law Graduate of 2017: Am I Ready?

JD, Ryerson?