First session, and we have Lyria Bennett Moses (UNSW, via skype), on ‘What law students need to know about technology’. Lyria argued that students need to know how technology is affecting legal practice – forms of new literacy – in addition to legal literacy. Doesn’t necessarily mean detailed knowledge of machine learning; but lawyers need to know how the tools work, and the contexts of their use, and how they fit into legal processes. Lyria gave examples, from regtech to expert systems, where in the latter example students have the opportunity to work with the system designers. Students learn skills and contribute to the legal logic trees being used in the expert system. At questions Anneka Ferguson raised a point about double degrees eg computer science and law, and the lack of integration in the dual degree programme. Lyria agreed, and so would I. At Strathclyde back in the 1990s we had double degrees in computing science & law, and integration was always an issue.
Rick Glofcheski, HKU, on ‘Learning law independently through authentic problem-solving’. Rick observed a general dissatisfaction with current teaching methods amongst the speakers at the conference; and there were many interesting ideas and approaches, but further engagement with faculty who were not present was needed. The more authentic the links between student learning and the real world, the greater the service we do them. My thought – query, of course, what ‘authentic’ means – see Joe Petraglia on the rhetoric of authenticity: Reality by Design: The Rhetoric and Technology of Authenticity in Education. Nevertheless the move to designing education where students solve problems in community by bringing the problems back to the class to discuss.
Finally Jeremy Dein QC on ‘Responding to domestic and global demands – joint liability’. Criminal defence barrister. Argued that there was a complete breakdown in comms between law schools in England and the profession. He noted the parallels between the developing regulatory situation in HK (eg Standing C’ttee Report), and England. He described the need for all concerned in the education of students in the law to engage with each other more than they were doing at present. His chambers in London, for instance, are presented annually with outstanding CVs. What distinguishes them? It is the fusion of skills and experience – a diverse experience of life, placements in finance, in prison work and elsewhere. Academic qualifications are not sufficient in themselves. In addition students need skills such as interviewing skills (ie at job interviews), communicating with clients who are often quite sophisticated about the law, case management, ability to handle work load, and the like. The professional world and the academic world needs to converge and communicate much more with each other about these issues, hence the concept of joint liability in his title.
Interesting juxtaposition of topics, moving from technology to forms of experiential, student-centred learning forms of learning, to a state of play comment on the relationship between academy and profession. At questions some staff from Northumbria U’s LLB course cited their mandatory clinic as an example contra Jeremy’s argument. True, but I think in the larger sphere Jeremy has a point. But I’d say that the relationship between profession and academy is a difficult topic to generalise upon. It differs from one jurisdiction to the next; and a critical player is the regulator. As a Scots academic working in England I was struck by the poor relations at many points between profession and academy in England – the situation was better in Scotland, it seemed to me. And it wasn’t generally the case in ACT in Australia, for instance that there was poor relations between profession and academy. We need to granularise the argument. In ACT, for instance, there was close contact between policy, government and the College of Law’s research. At questions Julian Webb raised the issue of regulator and regulation, and that co-regulation was essential. Until that happens, he said, we’re re-living ground hog day… I strongly agree. The debate was focusing on a stand-off between academy and profession, and missing from the discussion was the role of regulation, and the issue of regulation as affecting both academy and profession.