the demise of critical thinking at mls

10/10/2017

Vol 12, Issue 11

ANONYMOUS

Last week we were informed that, as a result of the recent curriculum review undertaken by MLS faculty members, Dispute Resolution and Legal Ethics would no longer be taught separately. A new subject would be taught instead: ‘Disputes and Ethics’; an amalgam of the two courses.

One issue that immediately came to mind was that, given the lack of crossover between the two subjects, Disputes and Ethics are an awkward combination.

More importantly however, I believe this curriculum change is emblematic of a far more significant issue: MLS does not encourage critical thought outside of jurisprudence. It is quite possible that MLS is not unique on this front, and that the failure to develop critical thought is an issue across contemporary law schools. However I can only comment on what I have seen at MLS.

What does this curriculum change have to do with critical thought? I believe Legal Ethics, as a standalone subject, is of great importance in prompting law students (future lawyers) to critique their personal ethics and professional intentions, and to question whether becoming a lawyer is right for them, given the stringent ethical requirements. Perhaps most importantly, Legal Ethics is an opportunity to inculcate an understanding of the solemnity and magnitude of becoming a member of the legal profession; of committing oneself to become an officer of the court.

The following example illustrates why these discussions are so critical. I remember my first LMR class well. We went around the room, each student expressing her motivations for studying law. Most of the students (predictably), myself included, espoused some variant of a wish to save the world though practising law. Most students in the class provided genuine and considered reasons. Skip ahead two years, to my first class of Legal Ethics. In an attempt to demonstrate the varied reasons that people study law, our teacher asked us to state our career goal in law, along with an explanation. The result was literally the inverse of what I had seen in LMR. 90% of the students responded with “commercial law”, explaining that they “enjoy problem solving”. Fair enough, but teachers, engineers, nurses and construction managers probably also enjoy problem solving. Also, it’s pretty unlikely that most of the students in the class had independently decided on this career path because they all generally “enjoy problem solving”.

This is not a diatribe against commercial lawyers – I too plan on practising commercial law. But whether we plan to become a commercial lawyer, a criminal lawyer, a legal academic or something completely unrelated, we must be able to make own our decisions. We should be able to explain why our choice is meaningful or important, what we want to get out of it, and how it fits into our ethical code. Otherwise, we risk creating lawyers who are not thinking, are ethically apathetic and do not respect the legal profession as a commitment to honour and serve something bigger than ourselves.

It seems that something occurred between LMR and Legal Ethics to dissuade this kind of critical introspection. Perhaps not enough of an effort is made throughout the course of the JD to ensure students are thinking critically about their decisions. Perhaps the curricula of Legal Theory and Legal Ethics need to be updated and students made aware of their significance. Nonetheless, I believe that Legal Ethics can, and should, play a role in combatting this reluctance to critically assess our careers and ethics.

I urge the MLS faculty members to reconsider the amalgamation of Legal Ethics and Dispute Resolution. I also urge law students to do a lot of thinking about why you are doing what you are doing. Not only might this result in more meaningful career paths for individuals, but it will also create more ethical, aware and committed lawyers.

This is the work of a JD student

More articles like this:

The rest of this issue:

NPJ

10/10/2017 03:32:14 pm

I disagree, one reason articulated to me for the merger was that law student in their second year often begin to gain practical legal experience so a knowledge of ethics is essential.

It is certainly true in my case at a CLC in second year, where I had a client that asked me to breach ethics, in a way that was not obvious to me until my supervisor let me know.

While I loved ethics, having a spare subject free allows law students to go deeper into fields that may interest them. Additionally, ethics is taught alongside supreme court rules at the other law school (because there is only one we compete with) so this brings us in line in that regard, and c'mon the first few weeks of DR were a total bludge. Roleplaying? Really? I paid 5k for this?

Still, good point, this will leave less room for critical thought an essential element of any legal education, moreso at the best legal school of the Southern Hemisphere. Ethics gave e so many interesting anecdotes and challenges, both Julians being masters of their craft.

A final addendum, I'm deeply saddenend by the fact that you felt the need to write this anonymously. I feel that this diminishes the work by allowing it to be disregarded and is a cop out to those of us who put our neck's (and our names) on the line week after week. I used to be afraid of being searchable too, but I later learned that this is a non issue. Please consider using your nae next time.

TJR

10/10/2017 03:55:40 pm

"I feel that this diminishes the work by allowing it to be disregarded"

So if the author had named themselves, the piece could not be disregarded? I'm not sure that makes sense.

I don't have a problem with anonymous articles - they allow the author to express their thoughts without being limited by fear of a backlash for holding a 'problematic' (read: not left wing) opinion.

Let's judge articles on their substance, not who wrote it.

10/10/2017 07:15:30 pm

The fact of the matter is an opinion article without someone to give it rarely has enough weight for people to take it seriously.

Comments are closed.