Abstract
This article describes the results and implications of a survey carried completed in 2014 and looking at the nature and extent of pro bono and clinical work in UK law schools. The survey is one of an ongoing series conducted every 2–3 years on behalf of the influential NGO, LawWorks (The Solicitors Pro Bono Group). The findings of this, the most recent survey, shows clearly that more law schools than ever are engaged in pro bono and clinical initiatives – a trend that has been increasingly evident over the past 15 years. To date over 70% of UK-based law schools have clinics. Not only is it the rule rather than the exception to do so but the numbers and scope of clinics in law schools that participate have grown considerably. These developments were reported to an international conference in 2015 (GAJE, Turkey) and delegates there concluded that such a survey would have global appeal and that work should now be carried out with a view to implementing such an initiative. This would have the potential to encourage the growth of pro bono work and might influence policy beyond law schools amongst government and the legal profession – leading to improved levels of legal education and increased access to justice.
Introduction
More law schools than ever are getting engaged in the provision of legal services to the public. 4 The impetus behind this may include the rise in legal needs that remain unfulfilled, the consumerization of legal education, the employability (or otherwise) of graduates entering a competitive job market and, possibly, an increasing recognition that effective learning requires an active engagement by students in the educational process.
Much has been written elsewhere on these topics, 5 and we do not intend to go into the merits of the arguments here. Rather, we note, using several corroborative sources, that more law schools than ever, on a global scale, are running pro bono and clinical initiatives. 6 We wish to take this as the premise and analyze the nature, extent and implications of it.
We take, as our starting point, a survey that was completed in 2014. The report is the most extensive one, to date, and maps the development, manifestation and range of pro bono activities in UK-based law schools. We suggest that this, whilst a picture of just one small and particular set of jurisdictions, is indicative of what is happening worldwide and that certain inferences can be drawn as a result. Whilst much of this article is focused on developments in the UK, we believe that there are important lessons to be learnt in an international context.
First, we look at the 2014 survey findings to give context and form to the discussion. Second, we look at the role of LawWorks, a UK-based non-governmental organization (NGO), and the potential of other NGOs to contribute to the development of pro bono clinics of law schools. We then briefly compare this with the bigger picture across the globe. Finally, we take a summary of the feedback received from a widely representative international conference that discussed the survey’s findings, analyze it and draw conclusions.
The 2014 Survey
First, this article looks at the results of a survey of UK law schools carried out on behalf of an NGO named LawWorks. 7 The survey is now an established part of LawWorks’s engagement with law schools and students.
The survey was dispatched in late 2013 and the responses were received and analyzed in early 2014. The survey covered all existing law schools in the UK and Northern Ireland. 8
The questions asked related to involvement in, what might be broadly described as, ‘pro bono activities’ and ‘clinical legal education’, and to former, current and planned involvement. The scope and range of the work undertaken and operational factors (both intrinsic and extrinsic) influencing the work were also explored and have been commented further. 9
As the overall purpose of the survey was to describe activity on the ground and to help facilitate discussion on the future development of law school-based pro bono initiatives, an attempt was made in it to identify trends and tendencies. In particular, the survey (which has been carried out in various guises and on a roughly triennial basis, since 2000) produces comparative data showing the extent of developments and changes from one survey period to another. We believe that this is most helpful in detailing analysis and drawing inferences.
Definitions
It may help at this juncture to mention that those surveyed were given a set of working definitions which were used throughout the 2014 survey to obtain consistency in responses. The definitions used were as follows:
Assessed—student performance in pro bono work is evaluated and recognition awarded Clinic—a structure that delivers pro bono work that is organized (but not necessarily delivered) by a law school Legal service—assistance provided to an individual, group or organization (the client) in relation to a problem or issue of concern to the client that may consist of one or more of the following: provision of information, giving of advice, completion of forms and other documents, representation in courts and tribunals, settlement of cases through negotiation and other forms of dispute resolution and other related activities Module—a defined component of the law curriculum which may be compulsory or elective and which students undertake as part of their course of study for which they are given credit on completion of it Partner—any individual, group or organization external to the law school that the law school works with in the organization or delivery of pro bono work Pro bono work—an activity organized and/or delivered by a law school that provides a legal service to an individual, group or organization without charge Public legal education (PLE)—an activity which raises awareness of legal rights and responsibilities Service user (client)—the individual, group or organization for whom the legal service is provided Street law—a type of PLE in which law students provide the awareness-raising service through interactive presentations to a defined audience, for example, school pupils, prisoners or other specific groups Supervise—the process of ensuring that the quality of work done in the clinic(s) meets appropriate academic and/or professional standards.
Given the above definitions, pro bono activities and clinics were, for the purposes of the 2014 survey, treated principally as one and the same thing, save that not all such activities necessarily involved the law school in the actual delivery of legal services such as in the use of placements or externships. It is, of course, appreciated here that a much wider definition is normally associated with the term pro bono publico.
The literature elsewhere also suggests that not all clinical activities, as captured by the survey, might in other circumstances be described as ‘clinical legal education’, if a reflective component (for which academic credit may or may not be given) was not present. 10 The aim of the survey was, however, to examine the nature and extent of pro bono activities in law schools, rather than focusing on the educational benefits of being involved in such activities. The educational dimension, however, is shown in responses to several questions, for example, on the assessment of student performance in clinics.
Summary of Findings
We do not wish to repeat the details of what the 2014 survey and previous researches contain. Those are available on the LawWorks website.
11
We will, however, discuss shortly the main findings. In summary, the headline outcomes of the 2014 survey were as follows:
The survey was sent to 99 institutions (with 109 identifiable law schools—as a result of some institutions having more than one physical presence or centre—in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales). Responses were received from 73 per cent of all law schools surveyed. Previous surveys had elicited a comparably high response rate. Overall, there was a 5 per cent increase in the number of law schools doing pro bono and clinical work since the last survey (2010). This shows that at least 70 per cent of all law schools in the UK have pro bono/clinical initiatives. The figure is probably slightly higher than this in that not all law schools responded and from personal knowledge of the researchers, some of those that did not respond do have such programmes. However, as this was not evidenced by the survey returns, it was not included in the findings.
12
The historic increase in pro bono work indicated by the surveys since 2000 shows a marginal decrease in the growth rate of law schools’ involvement;
13
however, this was perhaps predictable given the large number of law schools now engaged in this work. It would appear that a critical mass has been reached where continuous growth at previous rates is no longer possible. Sixty-nine per cent of law schools reported an increase in the range of pro bono work undertaken since any pro bono activity at the law school first started. Over 6,000 students are currently engaged in law school pro bono and clinical initiatives. Help was offered to over 11,000 clients (this figure can be more than doubled if the audiences at ‘Street Law’ sessions are included).
14
The 2014 survey illustrates a far greater scope and range of the type of work undertaken than previously recorded.
15
There has been a marked increase in the number of pro bono clinics—both in total number and in terms of how many clinics can be found at particular institutions, even surpassing the expectations based on trends in previous surveys—an increase year on year. Many institutions now have several pro bono/clinical initiatives operating within one law school.
16
‘Street Law’ and other PLE programmes are the most numerous types of activities—carried out by 84 per cent of law schools that do pro bono work.
17
Generalist advice clinics are found in 56 per cent of those law schools.
18
A placement programme/externship scheme is run by just over half of the law schools taking part in pro bono work (51 per cent).
19
There is, however, no consistent breakdown in the survey responses of who is placed, be they staff, undergraduate students, postgraduate students, researchers or non-academic staff. Subject specialist advice clinics are run by 40 per cent of the law schools.
20
There are a total of 78 specialist clinics reported by the survey, and their areas of expertise can be further broken down as follows. There is an increased range of activities which now sees a strong presence in family, employment and housing cases. The details of relevant specialisms include:
Employment law—in 21 per cent of responses Family (including domestic violence)—in 14 per cent Welfare benefits—10 per cent Housing—9 per cent Immigration and special educational needs (SEN)—5 per cent each Residential property, debt and general civil litigation—4 per cent each Commercial, consumer, crime, personal injury, commercial law and intellectual property—3 per cent each Environmental law, discrimination, mental health, health care, disability rights and sports law—1 per cent each.
In terms of the nature and extent of services offered, 76 per cent of the respondents indicated that they offer a particular service (some institutions offer more than one; therefore, the overall figures exceed 100 per cent). These were—generalist advice (56 per cent); specialist advice (40 per cent); generalist post-advice (11 per cent); specialist post-advice (13 per cent); representation before courts/tribunals (14 per cent); placement with external organization (51 per cent); miscarriage of justice representation, for example, Innocence Projects (26 per cent); ‘Street Law’ (49 per cent); other PLE (35 per cent); quasi-legal services, for example form-filling (19 per cent) and other pro bono activities (29 per cent).
All those that provide post-advice help also offer an advice-only service. 21 Seventy per cent indicated either a generalist or specialist advice clinic in 2014 compared to 50 per cent in 2010 and 35 per cent in 2006. 22
In 2006, there were just 12 advice-only clinics, but by 2010 this had increased to 40. The authors note that ‘[T]he incremental rise in number and types of clinic is very clear’ 23 and that this may not only be an indication of changing pedagogic practice and unmet legal need but is possibly due to ‘clinical legal education being used as a marketing tool to attract students [and serving the college or universities’ mission] of “corporate responsibility”’. 24
The survey found that 35 per cent of responding law schools offered more than one type of clinics, with 8 per cent offering six or more different types and 24 per cent offering three or more. 25
There was a slight downturn in the number of placements with external organizations, but those placements in general were still found in around half of all law schools doing pro bono/clinical work—the most common being with law/advice centres (16 per cent), followed by Citizens’ Advice Bureaux (CABx; 13 per cent). Law firms and NGO groups featured prominently, and there were a handful of placements reported at the courts, with the police and with local councils.
‘Street Law’ is identified as the next most used form of pro bono and clinical activities with 49 per cent of respondents saying they offered this service. Further 35 per cent offered some other form of PLE. In the 2010 survey, PLE in general and ‘Street Law’ in particular totalled 50 per cent. It is suggested that such a significant increase in overall provision indicates the popularity of such a legal service—and anecdotal evidence suggests that ‘Street Law’-styled projects are both well-received by participants (students and clients alike) and are relatively cost-effective to run (with none of the ongoing responsibilities associated with individual casework). 26 Non-‘Street Law’ activities were varied, ranging from designing information leaflets, to writing articles for the press, for example, The Big Issue. As the authors state: ‘[I]n the new age of self-represented litigants and lack of Legal Aid, [this] is possibly an area in which provision will expand’. 27
Miscarriage of justice schemes such as the Innocence Projects are also frequently reported as law school activities; however, it is noted that such programmes may pose challenges for law schools, given the amount of time taken on complex cases and the resources necessary to carry out that work and coupled with the very low success rates for clients that are typically found. 28
The 2014 survey shows that just 18 per cent of law clinics offer representation. This situation is perhaps unsurprising, given the cost of providing the necessary supervision, the need for specialist training in both the substantive and procedural laws and the relative lack of advocacy skills on the part of most students. Problems may also be encountered securing appropriate professional indemnity and related insurance cover. 29
Where representation does take place, a wide range of legal subject matters are addressed, including social security and education appeals, employment disputes, housing problems and ‘small claims’ cases.
The survey also asked about other pro bono activities which also revealed a wide variety of service provisions. Just over a third of those running pro bono initiatives offer some additional pro bono activities, including
The general public (74 per cent) and targeted groups (58 per cent) are the main recipients of ‘Street Law’ and other PLE activities; school pupils are the target group in 55 per cent of instances and staff in various institutions in 23 per cent. 32
Interestingly, the authors note that ‘only 20% or less of the law schools appear to do “Public Law” cases. This may be due to complexity or urgency, a lack of relevant expertise and experience and/or professional regulatory constraints.’ 33
In some cases, notably asylum and immigration, if the caseworker is not a holder of a full-practising certificate from either the Solicitors Regulation Authority or the Bar Council, then individual certification is required for the conduct of any casework. This may prevent representation in many law school clinics—unless the solicitor or barrister conducts the work personally. Failure to comply with these provisions is a criminal offence.
Other regulatory hurdles include a new certification scheme for criminal advocates 34 and the requirement to be accredited if dealing with certain aspects of debt and commercial/investment advice/transactions. 35
On commerce, more generally, the survey found that there are business advice clinics (e.g., on small business start-ups) in 21 per cent of cases and that there are several law schools looking to expand this area. 36
A breakdown of the actual work done by the students in clinics was answered by 70 per cent of the respondents. Legal research, signposting and letter writing are reportedly carried out in two-thirds of cases. The relatively small number of law schools that provide a service beyond initial advice give students the opportunity to undertake a wider range of activities, including drafting court documents (56 per cent), advocacy (51 per cent) and acting as McKenzie friends. Telephone and Skype contact with clients also ‘features prominently’. 37 Presumably, the advocacy response includes tribunal representation, as opposed to open court (in tribunals in England and Wales, those who are not legally qualified, including students, can appear on behalf of clients) and possibly case preparation. Where rights of audience are determined by legal qualification, the actual representation must be done by academic staff, who are professionally qualified and licenced, or by other lawyers, possibly on a pro bono basis.
According to the 2014 survey results, induction and training to take part in pro bono clinics are (reassuringly) commonplace and are predominantly provided through the academy (in 73 per cent of the cases), but legal practitioners also have a ‘significant input’, according to the authors. 38
Despite the sample size discrepancy between the surveys, the authors of the 2014 survey report noticed a significant increase in pro bono activities on the part of legal practitioners, external to the universities. It is suggested that this can be explained partly by the increasing engagement in pro bono within the profession and partly by the input of LawWorks in raising the profile of pro bono and clinical activities and yesterday’s clinic students having become today’s practitioners and clinic supervisors. This latter position has been the case, for example, in the USA, where a clinic is a compulsory feature for all American Bar Association-accredited schools. 39
The extent of external lawyer input is clear. The 2014 survey found that around half of all law school-based clinics are supervised, at least in part, by external, legally qualified practitioners. Seventy-nine per cent of these clinics had their work supervised by a qualified barrister or solicitor with a full-practising certificate—be it a member of academic staff or a lawyer external to the law school. The remainder may, possibly, be non-casework based, for example, ‘Street Law’ presentations and, therefore, not needing supervision by a full-practise certificate holder. 40
Fifty-five per cent of schools work in partnership with other organizations; however, due to sample size discrepancy and differences in questions asked in prior surveys, the report can only conclude that partnership number would appear to have increased overall since 2006. 41 Solicitors in private practice were the most numerous types of partners identified (73 per cent), followed by CABx (56 per cent), law centres (44 per cent), barristers in private practice (29 per cent), in-house lawyers—local government—(21 per cent) and in-house lawyers—commercial organization—(13 per cent).
Just 69 per cent law schools’ offerings of clinics answered the question on whether they had professional indemnity insurance (PII) cover for their pro bono and clinical work and only 55 per cent confirmed that they did. At face value, this is worrying both in terms of compliance with applicable professional practice rules and to ensure that clients, students, supervisors and institutions are protected.
As indicated above, unless a service is offered on the basis of being a solicitor’s (or barrister’s) practice, there is no requirement to comply with relevant codes. Of course, it may be very sensible to ensure that adequate insurance cover is in place in any event. Many of the reported activities covered by the 2014 survey report may not be technically caught by the professional practice rules—for example, placements (where presumably any insurance and supervisory responsibility lies with the host organization). ‘Street Law’ initiatives also may not, strictly speaking, require insurance. LawWorks also offers indemnity insurance cover for some of its related clinics. Further research is needed to find out exactly where possible risks may lay. 42 From the limited responses received on the type of insurance cover, 39 per cent of the clinics have multi-risk insurance policies (covering a combination of PII, public liability, employer, buildings and contents insurance). A separate policy to cover pro bono was taken out by just 8 per cent of the clinics, of which a quarter relied on cover provided through membership of another professional body. 43
A Brief Analysis
Before looking at the broader picture worldwide, let us consider the implications thrown up by the 2014 survey report.
These overall findings invite a number of comments and beg several questions.
First, on the nature of the services provided, as the authors of the survey report state: ‘That Employment law is the most common specialist clinic should come as no surprise given the lack of Legal Aid and “rights of audience” in (the applicable) tribunals.’ 44
It is worth questioning whether work in this area will decrease in future due to the recent imposition, in England and Wales, of a fee regime which now costs, the would-be claimant, a minimum of £230 to issue proceedings, with further fees payable at the hearing and/or appeal stages. The number of tribunal applications has fallen dramatically since the introduction of fees. 45
In relation to family cases, the rise in the number of clinics taking place on such matters is, judging by previous survey findings, a relatively new phenomenon and can be partly explained by the effective withdrawal of legal aid in this area (in England and Wales, since April 2013). Will client demand in this field of law show further signs of increase in future? We expect so.
The authors of the survey report further state: ‘Welfare benefits and housing cases have also featured heavily in law school clinic work, traditionally forming a response to Social Welfare Law needs. Immigration 46 and SEN advice and representation are also well-established.’ 47 It is suggested that given the extent of unmet needs in these fields (evidenced by the workload of service providers such as law centres and CABx) and ongoing cuts in public funding, ‘welfare’ cases will continue to form a major part of law school clinics’ work. 48
The findings on the extent of student engagement in law school clinics show a consistently high number involved—over 6,000 in both the 2011 and 2014 studies. The authors suggest, however, that this may be a considerable underestimation and the figure is, judging by survey responses on actual and planned pro bono activities, now more likely to be in the region of 10,000. 49 Future surveys could explore which students (undergraduate, postgraduate or vocational), at what level of their studies (year and term/semester), engage in pro bono and clinical work.
Interestingly, the survey of 2014 further shows that the pro bono and law clinic work undertaken are increasingly being assessed as a credit-bearing part of the curriculum. In the 2011survey, only 10 per cent of law schools said that they assessed student performance, compared to 25 per cent in 2014. 50
The important question of funding is also addressed in both the 2011 and the 2014 surveys. Notably, and perhaps reflecting the general economic climate of the time, the level of external funding had markedly decreased in the four years between these surveys—by some 30 per cent. That said, given that provision has increased, it appears that the law schools concerned are now meeting core costs for this work which was far from the case in 2011 where there was heavy reliance on external sources of funding. 51
Motivation is also an interesting issue. In the 2014 survey, law schools were asked the relative importance of the reasons underpinning involvement in pro bono and clinical work. Based on a 60 per cent response rate, 94 per cent of these rated educational value as very important, employability and social justice were rated at 75 per cent each, student engagement at 63 per cent and law school recruitment at 58 per cent. Other (less significant) reasons included student retention rates, serving the university mission and meeting staff interests. 52 The motivational dimension could be explored better in future surveys. 53
The 2014 survey report concludes that ‘[this data] support[s] the increasing importance seemingly attached to the educational value of clinics as well as the ever-present employability agenda and improving the student experience within the higher education sector’. 54 The commitment to servicing client needs is also clearly evident. 55
Judging by the survey, the balance between educational and legal service delivery objectives is being achieved with a discernible (and planned) increase in the number and scope of clinics and the presence of clinic as a discrete aspect of the taught (and assessed) curriculum.
As noted in previous survey reports, pro bono work in law schools continues to increase with these activities now taking place in majority of law schools in both the ‘old’ and ‘new’ sectors.
It is worth pointing out that just 10 years ago, pro bono clinics were predominantly found in the ‘new’ universities and in colleges offering overtly vocational courses. 56
The role of LawWorks is also not to be underestimated here. Other initiatives that reinforced the move towards greater pro bono and clinical activities include the setting up of a dedicated website 57 —a joint project of LawWorks and Queen Mary University of London, the creation of a LawWorks’ clinic membership giving access to regular updates and training sessions and access to professional practice materials (with the support of LexisNexis). Finally, there are the annual LawWorks and the annual Attorney General’s Award schemes. 58
As indicated above, conclusions are in some instances somewhat hard to draw, owing to inconsistencies between the questions asked in the various surveys and a degree of ambiguity in the 2014 questioning. Even though responses rates were generally high, there were a significant number of ‘no responses’ received to key questions which does affect, to an extent, the value of the survey findings.
That said more law schools than ever are clearly engaged in pro bono and clinical work in terms of number, scope and variety. Legal advice clinics provided by law schools provide the only free advice provision in many cases, post Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO). 59
LawWorks and Other NGOs—A Model for Future Development?
It is, we suggest, important in terms of capacity-building and sustainability to identify the role of organizations that could play a role or do play a role in promoting and supporting law school clinic development. In the UK, the key players in this context appear to be LawWorks and the Clinical Legal Education Organisation (CLEO).
The rationale behind LawWorks involvement in pro bono activities in law schools is said to be twofold:
[L]aw schools contribute (and have continuing potential to contribute) to the provision of free legal services; and [secondly] encouraging law students to become involved in pro-bono work is likely to develop their knowledge, skills and values including their commitment to, and understanding of, professionalism, which may in turn lead to their active involvement in pro-bono work later in their professional lives.
60
In the 2000 survey on pro bono activities in law schools (at that time restricted to institutions in England and Wales), 81 providers were contacted, 73 responded 61 and of these 41 per cent reported pro bono activities, while a further 19 per cent of institutions said that such work was planned. 62
A further survey in 2003 63 contacted 76 law schools: 56 replied and of these 41 per cent reported pro bono activities and further 42 per cent indicated that they were considering running pro bono schemes sometime in the future. 64 If the statistics are taken at face value, it seems to be the case that many law schools intending to run clinics were, for whatever reason, unable to actually do so but more institutions than ever had that intent. This raised a question at the (then) Solicitors Pro Bono Group (SPBG) to identify those institutions who might need support to turn aspiration into reality. Through organizing conferences and workshops, creating a small resource bank and having dedicated officers to support law schools, SPBG began to assist law schools directly.
Both of these early surveys looked at pro bono work and clinical legal education ‘in a wide context, but did not examine any educational aspect of the activity, for example the extent to which it was integrated within the curriculum’. 65
A further survey was carried out in 2005 (reporting in 2006) which found that many law schools were seeking help and advice on pro bono and clinic set-ups, and it also revealed that the number of active participants in pro bono and clinical work had gone up from just over 40 per cent to 60 per cent—a significant increase in a relatively short period. 66 A further interesting finding of the 2006 survey was that ‘[A]n increasing number of law school staff were given formal recognition of their role in pro-bono provision through discrete timetable allowances.’ 67
The then authors felt that this ‘broke new ground and further established the notion that pro-bono activity in law schools was…seen as [an] educational, not just [an] extra-curricular, activity’. 68 Whilst this might be seen as an encouraging sign in terms of development, the counter was ‘that the amount of money allocated both by institutions and by external donors remained …very modest’. 69
As we have shown above, the 2011survey found ‘a clear increase in pro-bono and clinical activity…. For the first time since the surveys began it was now the rule rather than the exception to deliver pro-bono services through UK law schools’. 70 This remains and is even more evidently the case as evidenced by the 2014 findings.
Law schools in the UK make a relatively small, though significant, contribution to unmet legal needs. Some might argue that it is not the duty of university and college to be a legal service provider. Others say that our ethical obligation as lawyers is to help fill the justice ‘gap’. 71 Regardless of one’s standpoint on the moral, practical and political agendas, here the truism is that there have always been unmet legal needs. The austerity programme currently being followed in the UK (and elsewhere) with its associated cuts in public funding means inevitably that that situation is likely to persist for the foreseeable future. Law schools may, therefore, subject to their own particular rationale for involvement, are likely to continue to play a role in pro bono provision.
It is worth putting this in context though. The role of LawWorks is a broader one that just supports law school initiatives. Through their wider remit, the LawWorks clinics network has, in the past year, taken 43,000 enquiries and provided over 28,000 clients with legal advice, with 8,000 additional people given information short of advice, for example, signposting. Of the 219 clinics offering that service, 32 per cent are linked to law school clinics who dealt with 11,000 cases, mostly in the first two terms of the year. 72
All of this pales somewhat into insignificance when compared with the UK’s largest advice provider. 73
The law school role in the UK at least is, therefore, important and is, judging by both numbers and needs, likely to remain so.
The Bigger Picture
How does the UK experience compare with that elsewhere?
In Europe More Generally
The situation in Continental Europe follows similar patterns, albeit from a much lower base of law school involvement.
A distinction here needs to be drawn between law schools in Eastern Europe (particularly in member countries of the former Soviet Bloc) and elsewhere. Clinics in the former emerged in the late 1990s with law schools in Poland leading the way. Backed by grants principally from the US-based institutions, clinics rapidly established themselves. This is well-documented elsewhere. 74 The situation is, however, very different in Western Europe, as noted by Marguerite Angelari of the Open Society Institute (one of the key funders in clinical legal education in Europe and the ‘developing’ world). 75
France makes an interesting case study in particular, with little or no discernible clinical activity in law schools until five years ago and now a thriving clinical legal education network alongside at least eight university-based pro bono law clinics. 76
Although clinics have been relatively slow to emerge in France, Spain, Germany and Italy, for example, this trend has very clearly reversed with a recent and significant expansion in the last few years. 77 The creation of the European Network for Clinical Legal Education (ENCLE) with its express mission of being ‘a European Network of persons committed to achieving justice through education’ has added considerable credibility and impetus to this movement. 78
ENCLE has members from over 15 European countries, and it stresses the value of working collaboratively (a key feature of clinical work both ideologically and pedagogically) to promote and support both the service needs and the educational function of clinics. To this end, the website contains a wealth of materials that are open to access. It held its third conference in Budapest in October 2015 and is a regular contributor to other regional and international events.
Worldwide
The USA, Canada and Australia have a long history of clinics. For those interested, these details are clearly documented in Frank Bloch’s book. 79 In the USA, in particular, there are strong and well-established networks to promote and support clinical legal education and to represent the interests of clinicians. 80
Rather like the picture in Europe, there are pockets of well-established pro bono and clinical work elsewhere, but in most instances development is relatively recent. Of those where clinics have been running for at least a decade (and in some cases longer), Chile, China, India, Russia and South Africa provide good examples. In the latter instances, clinics provided a very important vehicle for change in the lead up to the overthrow of the apartheid system. 81
Much more recent developments can be traced in Southeast Asia (notably in Vietnam, Cambodia and Malaysia), in South and Central America, in Africa (notably Nigeria) and in Japan. Bloch’s book again details these and more recent developments can be traced elsewhere. 82 Based in northern Thailand but with extensive influence across the region, the NGO Bridges across Borders Southeast Asia Community Legal Education Initiative (BABSEACLE) does important work in developing law school (and other) clinics. 83
Global Alliance for Justice Education (GAJE) should also be mentioned. The mission statement of this influential organization reads (original emphasis included):
GAJE is GLOBAL, seeking to involve persons from as many countries in the world as possible, avoiding domination by any single country, and especially committed to meaningful participation from less affluent countries, institutions, and organizations. GAJE is an ALLIANCE of persons committed to achieving JUSTICE through legal EDUCATION. Clinical education of law students is a key component of justice education, but this organization 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.
84
Through its collaborative work and, in particular, its international conferences, GAJE has become a point of focus for pro bono and clinic development and information sharing worldwide.
An International Dimension
The findings of the 2014 survey were presented by the authors of this article at the GAJE international conference held in Eskisehir in July 2015.
The outcomes of the session were: to describe the project and its findings, so as to provide an overview of how clinical and pro bono activities could be monitored; to get the views of attending delegates as to whether such a project might be useful in other jurisdictions; to identify if this might have international relevance and, if so, how such a project might be managed globally.
As a lead into discussion, the presenters highlighted that the survey also raised other issues relevant to ongoing debates in the UK context: access to justice—particularly in the light of cuts to legal aid, 85 and the practical, strategic and political position and role of law schools in responding to gaps in access to justice through pro bono provision.
Delegates were asked to consider whether such a survey might be useful in the context of their own countries and to contribute questions, comments and observations on what had been described; whether or not such a survey might be relevant in other jurisdictions/institutions and was there any common ground internationally that might be used and shared in order to develop clinical and pro bono provisions in law schools and for the wider community.
Of the comments received from delegates, there was a general agreement that a definitive picture of pro bono and clinical initiatives was essential in order to aid effective programmes and to complement other service provisions. It was also suggested that the 2014 survey provided a helpful, if (given legal and cultural differences) adaptable, template for use in other jurisdictions.
Other observations were that a standardized survey and questionnaire, whilst possibly useful, would need very clear definitions because of different understandings of terminology and concepts across jurisdictions, for example, types of clinical activity, the academic value of clinics, professional regulatory rules and issues around employability.
Would the equivalent of the 2014 survey work in the international stage?
Delegates from South Africa were, in some institutions, lobbying for inclusion of ‘clinic’ into curriculum, so a survey and its findings could prove a useful tool in this respect.
In India, participation in pro bono clinics was not only seen to be socially useful in terms of access to justice but could also act as a strong motivational factor for students and help with their subsequent employability. A survey on the nature and extent of pro bono clinics would almost certainly help in this respect.
Delegates agreed that the idea of an international survey is something that should be explored further, possibly with a pilot study being used to test out its international applicability. The pilot and any follow-up study might be done with the assistance of regional and global networks such as the ENCLE and GAJE themselves. Donor interest might be sounded out to help fund such an initiative—with the aim of making pro bono clinics more prolific and sustainable.
Conclusion
The 2014 survey, although a glimpse of what was happening in one country and at one point in time, is, we suggest, helpful to the extent that it maps activity and, by comparison with other similar surveys, the trends in development. Pro bono and clinical work is, for better or worse, a sign of the times. Although arguments can be made in favour of caution in the use of such work (e.g., does it let the state off the political hook in not taking full and primary responsibility for ensuring access to justice?), it is, we suggest, important to know who is doing what and how models that improve service provision can be developed. After all, there have always been unmet legal needs and, in the current climate, that is likely to be the case going forward.
The 2014 LawWorks survey is one small step along the path of recognizing what is possible and how law school works fit into the bigger picture. If this is of assistance in any way to the wider world, then that is to be welcomed. Perhaps the local, regional and international networks referred to above might be a starting point in effective information gathering and information sharing. Our list of such bodies is not exhaustive and many others exist on a country by country basis. Perhaps the job of the next survey is to map these too?
We are grateful to all those who helped complete the 2014 survey and the subsequent report and to those who have contributed to the discussion since.