Legal Education Review
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Legal Education Review |
|
Teaching Legal Ethics to First Year
Law Students
DIANA HENRISS-ANDERSSEN *
INTRODUCTION
This paper will discuss incorporating the teaching of legal ethics into the
first year undergraduate program of the law degree. Teaching
legal ethics in law
schools is a subject that has generated renewed interest in recent years. In
2000, the Council of Australian
Law Deans1 endorsed the
recommendation of the Australian Law Reform Commission
(ALRC),2 that the development of a deep
appreciation of ethical standards and professional responsibility be one of the
main aims of university
legal education in Australia.3
There is little discussion by the ALRC in its report as to what is meant by
ethical standards, and how this “deep appreciation
of ethical standards
and professional responsibility” should be taught.
The purpose of this
paper is to explore the meaning of ethical standards and professional
responsibility, and how this can be taught
to develop the students’
“deep appreciation”. This paper will consider particularly how
ethics teaching can be
incorporated into the first year program. The design of
the James Cook University subject LA 1006 Legal Studies will be used as a
case study.
In particular, the following issues will be addressed. Firstly,
what is legal ethics? The meaning of ethics in the legal context will
be
explored, and the traditional notion of legal ethics (as proscriptive rules of
behaviour) compared to broader concepts of legal
ethics. A broad definition of
legal ethics will be adopted. The paper will then address the justification for
teaching legal ethics
at an undergraduate level. This will entail a review of
the arguments for incorporating the teaching of legal ethics into the
undergraduate
program. The third issue relates to the objectives of ethics
teaching. What learning outcomes do we desire for our students? A set
of
objectives for teaching legal ethics will be suggested. Fourthly, the paper will
examine the question of how ethics teaching should
be incorporated into the
undergraduate degree course. It is suggested that the teaching of legal ethics
should be pervasive, and
integrated into substantive law subjects and skills
subjects (such as the mooting program) throughout the degree structure. Hence
the need to develop an introduction to ethical issues at the first year level,
so that this can be built upon in later year subjects.
Finally, what teaching
strategies (including assessment) are best employed to achieve these objectives?
The design of teaching strategies
and assessment for the first year subject will
be discussed.
WHAT IS LEGAL ETHICS?
The term “legal ethics” has for some time been synonymous with
the professional rules of conduct governing members of
the legal profession.
This reflects the traditional separation between law and morality that is part
of the ruling legal positivist
paradigm within which the legal academy and
profession have operated.
There have, however, been recent calls in common
law countries for increased ethical education of
lawyers.4 Whatever the drivers of these calls (changes
in the nature of legal practice, consumer pressure for greater accountability,
economic
rationalism, competition reform, and access to justice movements, to
name a few), they reveal a need to broaden the concept of legal
ethics.
A
review of recent published literature reveals a concept of legal ethics that
includes the values underpinning the legal system,5 and
the role of the lawyer in the legal system (including professional rules and
personal values).6 This paper will therefore adopt a
definition of legal ethics as the study of:
This definition, while encompassing the rules
governing professional behaviour, is both broader and deeper than the
traditional definition.
It is broader in that it also includes an understanding
of the values underlying the legal system (sometimes referred to as system
or
macro ethics).7 This necessitates an understanding of
the institutions of law, its processes and structures, and its philosophical,
historical and
sociological context. It also involves considerations of the
concept of justice, and the relationship between the legal system and
justice.
The new definition is deeper in that it allows for the development of the
individual’s own ethical or value framework
which forms the basis for
ethical judgement (sometimes referred to as micro
ethics).8
An appreciation of ethical standards and
professional responsibility therefore involves:
THE JUSTIFICATION FOR TEACHING LEGAL ETHICS AT AN UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL
Some of the main arguments for teaching ethics at an undergraduate level can
be categorised broadly under four main headings. The
first is the promotion of
justice – according to this argument, the link between the law, the legal
system, the legal profession
and justice necessitates the ethical education of
lawyers. As Webb succinctly argues, “‘just’ legal systems need
ethical lawyers.”10 The promotion of justice in
society requires a legal profession that understands and is committed to
justice.11 Legal training must therefore include
ethical training.
The second main argument is that law can never be value-
free. The claims of contemporary legal critiques, such as feminist legal
theory,
critical legal studies and postmodernism, that the law is not as objective and
neutral as has been claimed, have now become
more widely accepted. The argument
is that doctrinalism, or “black-letter legalism”, has disguised the
value-laden nature
of the law. As Le Brun and Johnstone note, “the
practice of law is an ethically saturated
arena.”12 The value-laden nature of law
necessitates the inclusion of ethics teaching in law schools. Teaching ethics is
therefore not a choice
but a responsibility.13
The
third category argues that teaching can never be
value-free.14 As Menkel-Meadow argues, “Law
teachers cannot avoid modeling some version of ‘the good lawyer’;
thus, they cannot
avoid teaching ethics. By the very act of teaching, law
teachers embody lawyering and the conduct of legal professionals. We create
images of law and lawyering when we teach doctrine through cases and
hypotheticals”.15
The fourth argument focuses
on the changing role of the legal profession in society. The general perception
of lawyers as self-interested
and otherwise “ethically
incompetent”,16 changes in the nature of legal
practice, consumer pressure for greater accountability, economic rationalism and
competition reform,17 have all increased the pressure
on educators of the legal profession to produce ethical lawyers.
Each of
these arguments assumes the broad concept of legal ethics described above,
rather than the traditional one. The final argument
indicates that the existing
ethical training of lawyers is inadequate. The first three assume the teaching
of values, both in the
sense of system ethics or macro ethics, and in the sense
of individual values (micro ethics).
DEVELOPING OBJECTIVES FOR ETHICS TEACHING
Incorporation of the teaching of legal ethics into the undergraduate law
degree requires a consideration of the aims and objectives
for ethics teaching.
In the context of teaching legal ethics, it is necessary to determine what
learning outcomes we desire for our
students.
The use of objectives is an
important part of planning curriculum.18 For teachers,
the use of objectives “provide criteria against which we can begin to
guide, assess, evaluate and monitor our
students’
learning”.19 For students, objectives can be used
as a reference for directing and measuring their
progress.20 In order to teach to the “whole
person” Le Brun and Johnstone suggest that teachers involve students in
learning experiences
which engage not only their intellect (the
“cognitive” domain), but also their emotions, values, attitudes,
habits and
beliefs (the “affective” domain), and their abilities
(for example, communication and negotiation) (the ... “skills”
domain).21 Objectives should ideally then be set in
each of these three domains – cognitive, affective and skills.
Drawing
on the broad definition of legal ethics outlined above, objectives for teaching
legal ethics could be designed as follows:
Cognitive (intellectual)
Affective (values)
Skills25
The objectives outlined above are suggested as desirable learning outcomes for students by the end of the undergraduate law degree. Obviously, the standard or level of these objectives needs to be adjusted appropriately for the year level at which ethics is taught. This will depend upon how the teaching of legal ethics is incorporated into the course structure.
HOW SHOULD ETHICS TEACHING BE INCORPORATED INTO THE UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE COURSE?
Frank D Armer, in his research on the teaching of ethics in Australian Law
Schools,26 identified two major methods of teaching
ethics. The first is the “discrete method” where it is taught in one
(or more)
discrete subject(s) on legal ethics. The second is the pervasive
method where ethical teaching is incorporated into substantive law
subjects
throughout the curriculum.27
The traditional means
of teaching legal ethics has been by way of a single subject, often offered in
the final year of university
study. Frequently, the subject is not included in
the degree structure, but is required for admission purposes
only.28 This traditional method of teaching of legal
ethics, while widely accepted, has attracted criticism from advocates of the
broader
approach to ethics teaching. The criticisms cover a number of grounds,
the most common being that the teaching focuses too narrowly
on codes of conduct
and rules governing behaviour. Webb argues that stand-alone courses offer too
little too late.29 If the broader definition of legal
ethics outlined above is adopted then clearly this method of teaching is
inadequate. Learning
proscriptive rules of behaviour does not necessarily impart
to students an understanding of the values underlying the legal system
or allow
them to develop their own value framework that becomes the basis for ethical
judgement.
Another criticism of this method of teaching ethics is that it
gives students the message that ethics is relatively
unimportant,30 and something that can be partitioned
and kept separate from the law itself. As Burns points out,
Unlike courses in substantive law subjects which are relatively
self-contained, issues of ethics pervade many if not all substantive
law
courses. To limit the consideration of ethical issues to one course limits the
ability of students to recognise ethical issues
when they arise in diverse areas
of practice as they are bound to do.31
By contrast,
teaching legal ethics by the pervasive method means that ethical issues are
explored as they arise in substantive law
subjects and skills-based subjects,
such as mooting and drafting. A number of problems have been identified with the
pervasive method
of teaching ethics. First, the insistence that all subjects be
adapted to integrate ethical issues may infringe the autonomy of individual
teachers, and there may be some reluctance on their part to integrate the
teaching of ethical issues into their subject. Secondly,
some teachers may not
feel qualified to teach these issues. Thirdly, extensive coordination (and the
corresponding resources) may
be required to ensure that the ethical instruction
did not become haphazard and inconsistent. Nina Tarr argues, however, that
inconsistency
in this regard may not be the problem that it appears to
be.32 She argues that repetition and overlap can be
beneficial and in fact necessary to learning, as one exposure or learning
experience
may be insufficient.33 Further, as students
acquire greater understanding through the course of their studies, the same
issues can be explored to greater
depth and analysis.34
Tarr further argues that inconsistency can be important because ethics issues do
not usually have clear answers:
Exposing students to a variety of approaches illustrates for them that
reasonable people may respond differently to the same circumstances.
If part of
the goal is to enable students to recognise various ethical situations and
exercise judgment, exposing them to inconsistent
responses will enhance their
development.35
While some inconsistency may not be a
problem, without extensive coordination ethics instruction left to the pervasive
method alone
may become so haphazard that “quality control” is lost.
The obvious answer to this problem is to either have tight monitoring
and
control of the teaching and instruction, with careful assessment and recording
of students’ attainment of ethical objectives
throughout the
degree,36 or to supplement the pervasive method with
one or more discrete legal ethics subjects. This is discussed further
below.
If one accepts the broader definition of legal ethics then the
pervasive method of teaching it is ideal. A critical understanding
of the values
underpinning the legal system, the role of the lawyer in that system, the
development of ethical judgement from understanding
and developing the
students’ own individual values can only be taught developmentally. For
example, the skill of ethical judgement
will develop later than, and is
dependent upon, development of many of the cognitive and affective objectives.
In order to develop
ethical judgement students must be exposed to ethical issues
as they arise in the course of their studies. Given the pervasive nature
of
ethical issues, the pervasive teaching method is ideal. This would ideally be
supplemented by compulsory subjects, one in first
year introducing ethical
objectives, and in later years, in jurisprudence and applied ethics. The study
of professional conduct rules
would fall into the latter. The benefits of having
this subject in the final year of study are that with the pervasive method, the
students should have already attained a reasonable standard in many of the
ethical objectives which will allow them to place the
professional rules in
context, and that this should occur immediately prior to the students entering
the profession when it is directly
relevant. It is also an ideal vehicle for the
final assessment of the students’ attainment of the ethical
objectives.
THE IMPORTANCE OF INTRODUCING LEGAL ETHICS IN FIRST YEAR
Webb and Armer both support the argument that the ideal method of teaching legal ethics would be a combination of pervasive ethics instruction and at least one discrete legal ethics subject.37 Armer, however, does not discuss the content of this discrete subject, except to suggest that it include moral philosophy and jurisprudence,38 nor its place in the degree structure. Webb suggests that there needs to be at least one first year subject and ideally a second year subject.39 The first year subject would ...
... set out the major ethical assumptions and implications of the due process
model, the system of delivering legal services, and
possibly introducing the
core ethical assumptions underlying the professional role. The obvious choice
for this would be a modified
“English Legal System” or “Law in
Society” module.40
It seems that although
Webb talks about a “core” legal ethics subject, this first year
subject would not be an exclusively
legal ethics subject, but rather an
introductory subject modified to include the teaching of ethical issues. The
second year module
(presumably an exclusively ethics subject) would develop
specifically professional legal ethics within a philosophical
framework.41 One disadvantage of placing this module in
the second year, as opposed to the final year, is that the students have not had
as much
opportunity of developing their own ethical awareness, and therefore do
not have the same opportunity of placing the conduct rules
in their wider
ethical context. Further, although with the pervasive method, ethical
instruction will continue throughout the rest
of the degree, students may not
retain the full import of the professional conduct rules in context. For these
reasons it would be
better to place the discrete “legal ethics”
subject towards the end of the degree, assuming that pervasive ethics
instruction
is ongoing throughout the degree.
The experience of teaching
legal ethics by the pervasive method at the Notre Dame Law School in the United
States is described by
Link.42 There the pervasive
method is supplemented by three compulsory ethics subjects – a first year
legal ethics subject, a jurisprudence
subject and a third year applied-ethics
subject. The content of the first year subject is described in detail by Link,
and includes
the study of the various roles of the lawyer (principally as
protector of justice), explores notions of justice, and introduces ethical
theories and practical aspects of ethical
decision-making.43 In this model, students are
introduced to professional conduct rules within the context described above, in
their first year. This
is taken up and developed in the later year applied
ethics subject.
If legal ethics is taught by the pervasive method, there
needs to be some introduction to ethical issues at first year level. It stands
to reason that, given the developmental nature of many of the ethical
objectives, introduction of these objectives in the first year
allows for their
maximum development throughout the course of the degree. Further, if ethical
objectives are incorporated into the
teaching of mainstream law subjects
throughout the law degree, there needs to be some introduction to these
objectives at the outset
of the degree. Just as the legal research, writing and
analysis skills necessary for the study of law are introduced at the
commencement
of the students’ study of law, and developed throughout their
studies, so the ethical objectives to be developed throughout
the course of
study must be introduced at the commencement of that course.
Even in the
absence of pervasive teaching of ethical issues in later years, the introduction
of some of the groundwork for ethical
awareness at first year level would be an
improvement on the current absence of broader ethical teaching. Further, if the
students
are to be taught to develop their own individual ethical or value
framework for exercising ethical judgement, then it is important
to “get
in early” before they are “desensitised” by traditional legal
scholarship. As Webb points out, “a
primary effect of conventional legal
education seems to be to desensitise students to justice
issues”.44 Elsewhere Webb says:
...Students learn early on that the instinctive moral reaction of the
first year student – “... but that’s not right” is
simply not valued by the system. They
become detached from the wider
non-technical issues and often increasingly passive or plain cynical in the face
of attempts to get
them to respond to a
situation.45
It is therefore important to introduce
ethics teaching in the first year, and work towards the development of ethical
awareness by
building on the students’ existing values before they become
desensitised. This can be achieved either by an exclusive or discrete
legal
ethics subject such as described by Link, or by the integration of ethics
teaching into an introductory law subject as described
by Webb. The redesign of
a first year law subject at James Cook University is an example of the latter.
REDESIGNING THE FIRST YEAR CURRICULUM AT JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY TO INCORPORATE AN INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS
Any discussion of the ideal methods of teaching assumes the resources to
implement these methods. In the absence of extra resources,
however, the
integration of ethics teaching into mainstream law subjects can be achieved
where teachers are committed to the ideals
of ethics teaching. It is in this way
that the introductory elements of legal ethics have been incorporated into the
redesign of
a first year subject at James Cook University. This is similar to
Webb’s idea discussed above of a modified first year “Law
in
Society” module. It remains an introductory law subject that has
integrated ethics teaching and is not an exclusively legal
ethics
subject.
The writer is an associate lecturer at the James Cook University Law
School, and course coordinator of the first year subject Legal Studies. Legal
Studies is offered in the second semester of first year, and has been
something of a “Law in Context” subject. As such it has
required
little amendment and is therefore an ideal subject to incorporate much of the
elements of ethics teaching described above.
The subject matter of the
Legal Studies subject is divided into three modules – Legal
Institutions, Access to Justice and an Introduction to Legal Theory. The content
of each of these modules will be described, and related to the ethical
objectives to which they are directed.
Module One – Legal Institutions
The first module consists of an introduction to the
role played by the legal institutions such as the judiciary, the jury system,
the legal profession and the courts, within the jurisprudential and
constitutional framework of the Australian legal system. In the
first week the
students are introduced to the jurisprudential and constitutional framework of
the Australian legal system. The rule
of law is discussed, as are the principles
of responsible government, parliamentary sovereignty, federalism and separation
of powers.
Within this framework, the roles of the judiciary, juries, the legal
profession and the courts are examined.46 For example
the role of the judiciary is examined in the context of its independence, both
in the separation of powers’ sense
and in the sense of its capacity for
objectivity and neutrality. When the students study the legal profession, they
are introduced
to the structure of the profession, traditional legal ethics and
the lawyer-client relationship, as well as issues in the push for
reform. In
their study of the courts, students study the nature of the adversarial system
and examine the impact of the courts on
those who use them. Issues such as the
architecture and design of the court buildings, the roles of judicial and
support staff, the
relationship between the various players (for example the
legal profession, their clients, interpreters, and support staff), and
the
effect of language and ritual are discussed.
The content of the first module
meets the following cognitive objectives of legal ethics teaching:
It is directed at the following affective (value) objectives:
Module Two – Access to Justice
The second module examines the impact of the
Australian legal system and law on cross-sections of the Australian community.
The study
includes considerations of gender, language, age, race, disability and
socio-economic background. The module begins by looking at
some general problems
of access to justice and possible means of redressing these problems. The focus
then shifts to access to justice
for Indigenous Australians. Topics include
Government policy and practice toward Indigenous Australians since 1788, the
“Stolen
Generation”, and an introduction to Native Title and Land
Rights. The module concludes with the introduction of the global
perspective of
international human rights standards.
The content of this module addresses
the cognitive objectives of understanding the role of law in society, knowledge
of concepts of
justice, and understanding the relationship between the legal
system and justice. The study of the problem of cost47
as an inhibitor to access to justice, for example, further enhances
understanding of the relationship between the role of lawyer,
legal system and
justice.
This module addresses the following affective objectives:
It is directed at the skill objective of ability to recognise ethical problems.
Module Three – Introduction to Legal Theory
The third and final module introduces a range of
philosophical perspectives on the law. It begins with a study of Liberalism, and
then outlines Critical Legal Studies and Feminist Legal Theory. This component
is introduced at the end of the course, so that the
students are less likely to
be disconcerted or threatened by the theoretical material. By the time the
theories are introduced, the
students have already become familiar with the
process of critique in the less theoretical content of the first two
modules.
The content of the third module is directed at the following
cognitive objectives:
It is aimed at the following affective objectives:
DESIGNING TEACHING STRATEGIES AND ASSESSMENT
The teaching strategies employed in Legal Studies reflect a teaching
philosophy that sees teaching as facilitating active student learning, and
embraces Ramsden’s six key principles
of effective teaching in higher
education.48 The strategies are designed to encourage
students to adopt a “deep” learning approach in which the student
seeks depth
of understanding.49 A “surface”
approach in which the student seeks to simply reproduce information is actively
discouraged.
For resource reasons, the didactic method is the main teaching
method for the subject. Students attend a two-hour lecture and one-hour
tutorial
per week. The lectures are as interactive as possible. The tutorials are limited
to twenty students and participation in
tutorials is assessed. Assessment is
used as an incentive to promote active learning, and the assessment of tutorial
participation
ensures that students turn up to the tutorials prepared and ready
to engage in meaningful discussion.
As mentioned above, assessment is used as
a major teaching strategy. Probably the most important piece of assessment, as
far as teaching
legal ethics is concerned, is the court report and
presentation.50 As part of this formative assessment,
students are required to attend sessions of the courts. They are first required
to submit to
their tutors a piece of written work which summarises the
literature they have been required to read for Module One, and canvasses
where
appropriate opposing points of view. This ensures that they have read the
relevant literature and made some attempt to at least
reproduce it, if not to
understand it. The tutors hand the written work back to the students with
feedback. They receive no assessment
mark at this stage – it is an
opportunity for students to learn from the feedback they receive. The work will
then be improved
by the students and used as the basis for their written report
(see below).
The students are then required to form groups of three or four
to visit the courts, where they must attend sessions of the Magistrates
and
either the District or Supreme Courts.51 During their
visit, the students are required to make observations about the court system,
the law in operation and its impact upon
the litigants, with particular
reference to access to justice. The students are instructed to address issues
such as:52
Each group is then required to make a presentation to
their tutorial class, outlining their observations. For the purposes of the
presentation, the groups are encouraged to choose a particular focus from the
areas listed above. Which one is chosen will greatly
depend upon what the group
observed. Group work is used as a teaching strategy to encourage active student
learning by requiring
them to communicate, discuss and justify their ideas to
their peers.53 The students will need to discuss the
issues, their observations and ideas within their groups, to create their
presentation.
The students, as individuals, are then required to produce a
written report. Using the earlier piece of written work as a starting
point, the
students are asked to produce a report that also records their personal
observations of the courts, and synthesises their
own observations with the
published literature on the area.54
The court report
assessment is directed to encouraging a deep learning approach to the cognitive
legal ethics objectives of:
The assessment also promotes the affective objectives of:
It will be apparent from the above that
the legal ethics instruction in the Legal Studies subject is directed
primarily at the cognitive and affective objectives. Occasionally the skill
objective of recognition of ethical
dilemmas is targeted. The ultimate ethical
objective, the ability to exercise ethical judgement can only be achieved after
many of
the cognitive and affective objectives have been developed. At the first
year level, the desirable outcome is the attainment of an
introductory standard
of many of these objectives. This is what has been attempted in the case of
Legal Studies.
To the extent that it can be measured, the assessment
and feedback from students indicates that this has been achieved. It has been
argued that objectives should only be set as observable outcomes, so that
success in teaching and learning can be objectively
ascertained.55 One limitation of this approach,
however, is that it can effectively limit learning
outcomes.56 In contrast, the objectives set here are
aspirational. Achievement of the objectives will occur along a continuum, as
ethical awareness
and judgement develops. While it may be possible to
objectively determine a first- year standard of some of the objectives,
particularly
the cognitive ones, others such as the affective objectives which
relate more to the students’ own values are not so easily
assessed
according to observable objective criteria. Notwithstanding this limitation, the
assessment and feedback from students indicate
that a first year standard of
these ethical objectives is being realised. The students’ work submitted
for assessment indicates
that the cognitive objectives and some of the affective
objectives are being achieved. Feedback from students in response to a
questionnaire,
which specifically addressed the issue, demonstrates that the
students themselves felt that the ethical objectives had been
achieved.57 Other student feedback about the course,
both formal and informal, is overwhelmingly positive. Motivation, an indication
that the
affective self is engaged, is high. The teething problems inevitably
associated with innovation have not affected these outcomes.
Good teaching
is a constant process of reflection and adjustment. A number of inspiring
teaching strategies, such as the use of role
modeling and
storytelling,58 are described in the published
literature on ethics teaching. The next stage in the integration of ethics
teaching into the Legal Studies subject will involve reflection upon
whether ethics teaching in that subject can be improved by the use of these
strategies.
CONCLUSION
The meaning of ethical standards and professional responsibility is more than the mere study of professional rules of conduct. It involves the critical study of the values underpinning the legal system, and the role of the lawyer in that system. It includes professional rules and personal values, and the ability to exercise ethical judgement. This can only be taught developmentally, and should ideally be introduced at first year level. The design of the James Cook University Legal Studies subject has been used here as an example of the successful integration of ethics teaching into an introductory law subject.
* Lecturer, School of Law, James Cook University.
The writer would like to thank Fiona Martin and the anonymous referees for their
helpful
advice.
©2002. [2002] LegEdRev 3; (2002) 13 Legal Educ Rev 45.
1 Council of Australian Law Deans, Newsletter no 2. <http://www.law. newcastle.edu.au/cle/cald/index.html>
2 Australian Law Reform Commission, Managing Justice: A Review of the Federal Civil Justice System, Report no 89 (Canberra: AGPS, 1999) Recommendation 2.
3 The ALRC recommendation identified three main aims of university legal education -the study of substantive law, the development of professional skills, and the development of deep appreciation of ethical standards and professional responsibility.
4 B Cotter, Professional Responsibility Instruction in Canada (1992); American Bar Association Legal Education and Professional Development: An Educational Continuum (MacCrate Report) (1992); Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct, First Report on Legal Education and Training (UK; 1996); Cotter and Roper Report on Education and Training in Ethics and Professional Responsibility, New Zealand Law Society (Wellington; 1996); Australian Law Reform Commission, Managing Justice: A Review of the Federal Civil Justice System (1999).
5 See for example; F Armer, The Teaching Of Ethics in Australian Law Schools (1998) 16(2) J of Professional Legal Educ 247, at 247; J Webb Ethics for Lawyers or Ethics for Citizens? New Directions for Legal Education (1998) 25(1) J Law and Society 134, at 136.
6 See for example; B Cotter, Professional Responsibility Instruction in Canada (1992); A Evans, The Values Priority in Quality Legal Education: Developing a Values/Skills Link through Clinical Experience (1998) 32(3) Law Teacher 274; D Link, The Pervasive Method of Teaching Ethics (1989) 39 J Legal Educ 485; J Webb, Ethics for Lawyers or Ethics for Citizens? New Directions for Legal Education, supra note 5.
7 J Webb, Ethics for Lawyers or Ethics for Citizens? New Directions for Legal Education, supra note 5; R O’Dair, Recent developments in the Teaching of Legal Ethics – A UK Perspective, in K Economides Ed, Ethical challenges to Legal Education and Conduct (UK; Hart Publishing, 1998) at 151.
8 J Webb, Ethics for Lawyers or Ethics for Citizens? New Directions for Legal Education, supra note 5; O’Dair, supra note 7.
9 Webb provides an excellent discussion of moral development in the context of legal education in J Webb, Developing Ethical Lawyers: Can Legal Education Enhance Access to Justice? (1999) 33(3) Law Teacher 284, at 290-92.
10 J Webb, Developing Ethical Lawyers: Can Legal Education Enhance Access to Justice?, supra note 9, at 285.
11 Id; K Economides, Introduction: Legal Ethics – Three Challenges for the Next Millennium in K Economides ed, Ethical challenges to Legal Education and Conduct (UK; Hart Publishing, 1998) at xxi-xxii.
12 M Le Brun & R Johnstone, The Quiet Revolution: Improving Student Learning in Law (Sydney; LBC, 1994) at 165.
13 A Hutchinson, Beyond Black-Letterism: Ethics in Law and Legal Education (1999) 33(3) Law Teacher 301, at 301.
14 See J Webb, Developing Ethical Lawyers: Can Legal Education Enhance Access to Justice?, supra note 9, at 286; C Menkel-Meadow, Can a Law Teacher Avoid Teaching Legal Ethics? (1991) 41 J Legal Educ 3, at 3.
15 Menkel-Meadow, id.
16 C Sampford & S Blencoe, Educating Lawyers to be Ethical Advisors, in K Economides ed, Ethical challenges to Legal Education and Conduct (UK; Hart Publishing, 1998) 315, at 316; see also A Goldsmith & G Powles, Lawyers Behaving Badly: Where Now in Legal Education for Acting Responsibly in Australia?, in K Economides ed, Ethical challenges to Legal Education and Conduct (UK; Hart Publishing, 1998) 119, at 122.
17 See generally the discussion in A Goldsmith & G Powles, supra note 16, at 122-31; and C Sampford & S Blencoe, supra note 16, at 319-23.
18 See the discussion in Le Brun & Johnstone, supra note 12, at 154- 76.
19 Id at 155.
20 Id.
21 Id at 158.
22 Webb uses this term to encompass honesty and trustworthiness, commitment to fairness and being true to oneself; J Webb, Ethics for Lawyers or Ethics for Citizens? New Directions for Legal Education, supra note 5.
23 J Webb, Developing Ethical Lawyers: Can Legal Education Enhance Access to Justice?, supra note 9, at 292.
24 Id.
25 The skills discussed here are all part of the ultimate ethical skill, the ability to exercise ethical judgement.
26 Discussed in his article, Armer, supra note 5.
27 Id at 252. Susan Burns identifies two further methods – in clinical courses and simulated practice: S Burns, Teaching Legal Ethics [1993] LegEdRev 6; (1993) 4(1) Legal Educ Rev 141, at 145.
28 See for example the James Cook University subject Legal Ethics which is not counted to the degree but is offered to those students who require the subject for admission to the profession.
29 J Webb, Developing Ethical Lawyers: Can Legal Education Enhance Access to Justice?, supra note 9, at 287.
30 Armer, supra note 5, at 253.
31 Burns, supra note 27, at 151.
32 N Tarr, Teaching the Reflective Practitioner in the United States (1999) 33(3) Law Teacher 310.
33 Id at 312.
34 Id.
35 Id at 313.
36 Of course this raises the problem of infringement of academic autonomy, referred to above.
37 Armer, supra note 5, at 253; J Webb, Developing Ethical Lawyers: Can Legal Education Enhance Access to Justice?, supra note 9, at 293; J Webb, Ethics for Lawyers or Ethics for Citizens? New Directions for Legal Education, supra note 5, at 146.
38 Armer, supra note 5, at 253.
39 J Webb, Developing Ethical Lawyers: Can Legal Education Enhance Access to Justice?, supra note 9, at 294.
40 Id.
41 Id.
42 Link, supra note 6.
43 Id.
44 J Webb, Developing Ethical Lawyers: Can Legal Education Enhance Access to Justice?, supra note 9, at 285-86, citing Anthony Amato, Rethinking Legal Education (1990) 74 Marquette Law Review 1; Boon & Levin, The Ethics and Conduct of Lawyers in England and Wales (London: HMSO, 1995) at 154-56; Nicholson & Webb, Ethics and the Legal Profession: Critical Interrogations (Oxford: Oxford University Press) (forthcoming).
45 J Webb, Ethics for Lawyers or Ethics for Citizens? New Directions for Legal Education, supra note 5, at 138-39.
46 The required readings for this module are excerpts from the following texts: Hunter, Ingleby & Johnstone eds, Thinking About Law: Perspectives on the History, Philosophy and Sociology of Law (Allen & Unwin, 2000); Bottomley & Parker, Law in Context (Federation Press, 1997); G Bird, The Process of Law in Australia (Butterworths, 1993); K Laster, Law as Culture (Federation Press, 1997).
47 This problem is approached both from the sociological perspective and from the perspective of the legal profession.
48 P Ramsden, Learning to Teach in Higher Education (London: Routledge, 1992) at 96-103.
49 See the discussion of deep and surface learning styles in Ramsden, supra note 46, ch 4; and Le Brun & Johnstone, supra note 12, ch 2.
50 This was inspired by a colleague, Lynda Crowley-Cyr, who had implemented a similar piece of assessment on a smaller scale, for commerce students studying law for the first time.
51 The group requirement has the added advantage that the trip may be less intimidating for some of the first-year students who may otherwise so find it.
52 The coverage of these issues in the court assessment was inspired by Bird, supra note 46; and Laster, supra note 46.
53 It is also to promote the (non-ethics-specific) skill objectives of teamwork and interpersonal communication skills.
54 Students are reminded to realise the limitations of their own observations recorded during a one-off visit as a basis for drawing any wider conclusions.
55 Le Brun & Johnstone, supra note 12, at 156.
56 See the discussion in Le Brun & Johnstone, supra note 12, at 156-57.
57 This questionnaire was designed by the writer and undertaken in addition to the University-wide student evaluation of subjects, to obtain feedback from students on a range of issues relating to the teaching of the subject, including the effectiveness of various teaching strategies employed.
58 See for example the discussions in Link, supra note 6, and Menkel-Meadow, supra note 14. For an interesting discussion of Atticus Finch as a role model see also T Dare, The Secret Courts of Men’s Hearts, Legal Ethics; and Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, in K Economides ed, Ethical challenges to Legal Education and Conduct (UK; Hart Publishing, 1998) at 39.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/LegEdRev/2002/3.html