Do We Need a New Approach to Legal Education?
by Kenneth Walton

One of my jobs is to look at barriers to entering into the legal profession. Very high law school tuition fees seem one such barrier.

I recently spoke with one of our law deans about the issue of law school tuition fees. I was told that the pressure comes from the administration. Universities, (and for all we know governments) think that students are going to bring down a hefty income once admitted to the Bar and so, as a way to cash in on future income, significant tuition fees are charged. It is pointed out that large tuition fees are charged because that is what the market will bear (although it is not said that the market is created by the monopoly universities have on educating lawyers).

At the Canadian Bar Association, we see the results of the high cost of legal education. Our junior lawyers tell us that they come out of law school with debts between $40,000 and $100,000. These are very able people who largely did not qualify for academic scholarships, nor did they have the resources to afford such enormous costs.

This enormous debt load means our new colleagues take articles where the best dollars are. They have to, in order to repay their loans. Perhaps it means forsaking practice in some less populated part of B.C. because there is a perception that one’s debts will be repaid more quickly with employment at a big city law firm.

What we are looking at is an example of bad public policy. The immense pressure to retire loan debts may delay important activities like buying a house and rearing the next generation.

Many law schools are in high cost of living locales like Ontario or B.C. Students take on not only student loan debt, but often run up large credit lines, all for the sake of what has become a very expensive education.

In this crisis (for that is what it is), perhaps it’s time to consider some radical alternatives.

For example, why does law need to be instructed at university? Lower cost and more accessible community colleges may be a place where law could be taught. Perhaps another option may be private law schools as are offered in the United States.

Perhaps the Law Society’s Professional Legal Training Course could form part of the third year curriculum at these new law schools. That would resolve the friction with academics who say their job is not to produce practising lawyers (even though most of their students choose to practise).

Lastly, why do governments treat articling and PLTC as time when student loans become due and payable? Education for practising lawyers includes these mandatory programs – surely that time should be exempt from loan payment, as is done when a student is under formal instruction.

So if you are a billionaire who wants a new law school named after you, let’s talk.

I wish you success in your personal and practice life.

This article was published in the December 2007 issue of BarTalk and is subject to the copyright by the British Columbia Branch of the Canadian Bar Association, 2007, all rights reserved.